Madhya Pradesh High Court
Harbhajan Singh Arora vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 June, 2023
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 28 th OF JUNE, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 14219 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
HARBHAJAN SINGH ARORA S/O SHRI BALWANT SINGH
ARORA, AGED 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SOCIAL
WORKER INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI VIVEK DALAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH CHIEF
SECRETARY MANTRALAYA, VALLABH BHAWAN,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COLLECTOR DIST. INDORE, COLLECTORATE
MOTI TABELA, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OFFICE OF
COLLECTOR, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (REVENUE) RAU AREA,
OFFICE OF COLLECTOR INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (NAZUL) OFFICE OF
COLLECTOR, INDORE DIST. INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6. REVENUE INSPECTOR RAU AREA, OFFICE OF
COLLECTOR, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. SHRI SANJAY ASARPUDEKAR 20-E, RAJENDRA
NAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 6/30/2023
12:34:38 PM
2
( SHRI ANAND SONI, LEARNED ADDNL. ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR THE
RESPONDENT)
This petition coming on for admission this day, JUSTICE SUSHRUT
ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI passed the following:
ORDER
Heard on the question of admission.
Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India in the shape of Public Interest Litigation praying for the
following reliefs:
" (a) That, impugned order dated 03.06.2023 and 09.06.2023
issued by respondent no.1 be quashed.
(b) Respondent no. 7 be directed to give bank guarantee of Rs.
42,30,597/- during the pendency of petition.
(c) Such other relief/reliefs this Hon'ble Court deems fit. "
2. Brief facts of the case are instant Public Interest Litigation has been
filed against the order dated 03.06.2023, whereby the lease of plot situated at
Nazul Plot No. 1478(Dussehra Maidan) admeasuring (referred to herein as 'plot
in question')80,000 sq ft. has been allotted to respondent no.7 by respondent
no.5 for a period of 30 days w.e.f. 10.06.2023 demanding lease rent of Rs.
18,43,868. Respondent no. 5 allotted the said plot to respondent no.7 under
Rule 126 of Madhya Pradesh Nazul Bhumi Nivartan Nirdesh 2020(referred to as
'Nirdesh 2020' hereinafter) at license fee of Rs. 18,43,868. It is pertinent to
mention that earlier adjoining plot admeasuring 60,000 sq ft. has been allotted
on temporary lease for the purpose of exhibition and fair in the year 2017-18 at
the guideline rate of Rs. 5112/- and was charged 7.5% of total market value of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 6/30/2023
12:34:38 PM
the plot in question amounting to Rs. 44,11,726 as license fee in terms of
Clause 32 of M.P. Revenue Book of Circular 4(1). It is submitted that
respondent no.7 has been allotted 80,000 sq ft. plot for license fee of meager
amount of Rs. 18,43,868/- while as per the present guideline rate for commercial
purposes is 5279, the lease rent for same plot will be Rs. 60,74,465/- thereby
causing huge loss to the State Exchequer to the tune of Rs. 42.30,597/- by not
charging 0.5% of the market value ostensibly under Nazul Guidelines, 2020. The
petitioner submitted a representation dated 05.06.2023 before the respondent
no.1-6 to recover the difference amount of lease rent from respondent no.7 as
per guidelines and in terms of Clause 32 M.P. Revenue Book of Circular 4(1).
Hence, the present petition is filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is actively
working as a social work which has been appreciated by various institutions. It
is further submitted that similar issue was raised by the petitioner in the year
2021 for the same plot in question before the trial Court and had also made
complaint before the Lokayukt which is also pending consideration. So far as
the present the present case is concerned, the petitioner submitted a
representation dated 05.06.2023 before the respondents requesting to recover
the difference amount of lease rent from the respondent no.7 as per guidelines
and in terms of Clause 32 M.P. Revenue Book of Circulars 4(1). Now the
petitioner is before this Court in the present public interest litigation.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/State opposed
the prayer and submitted that the petitioner has not given his complete
antecedents and have also not disclosed as to what public interest work he has
performed for the Society. Learned counsel for the respondents has brought to
the notice of this Court the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 6/30/2023
12:34:38 PM
the case of Surendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of M.P. and Others[2019 (1)
M.P.L.J. 75] to contend that the petitioner has failed to produce on record to
satisfaction of the Court such social work in last couple of years in the area in
respect of which Public Interest Litigation is involved. Merely spending money
like lawyer's fees from their own pocket does not satisfy test of locus standi.
Therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable.
6. The Division Bench of this Court in Surendra Pratap Singh(supra),
has referred to the judgment of the Apex Court involving Public Interest
Litigation in the case of State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal
and others[(2010) 3 SCC 402] wherein the Apex Court has laid down certain
guidelines to be followed before exercising jurisdiction of Public Interest
Litigation. The guidelines are as under :-
(1) The courts must encourage genuine and bonafide PIL and
effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous
considerations.
(2) Instead of every individual judge devising his own procedure
for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate
for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the
genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives.
Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed
the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar
General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the RP
638/2017 Rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary
General of this court immediately thereafter.
(3) The courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the
petitioner before entertaining a PIL.
(4) The court should be prima facie satisfied regarding the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 6/30/2023
12:34:38 PM
correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL.
(5) The court should be fully satisfied that substantial public
interest is involved before entertaining the petition.
(6) The court should ensure that the petition which involves
larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over
other petitions.
(7) The courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the
PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The
court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive
or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation.
(8) The court should also ensure that the petitions filed by
busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by
imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb
frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous
considerations."
7. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the present
petition as well none of the aforesaid guidelines are satisfied as laid down in the
case of State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and
others(supra). Therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly,
the same is liable to be dismissed.
8. Heard, learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
9. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that liberty
may be given to him to file fresh representation and directions be issued to the
respondents authorities to consider the same within prescribed time.
10. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with liberty
to the petitioner to file fresh representation alongwith certified copy of the order
passed today raising all his grievances within a period of one week from today.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 6/30/2023
12:34:38 PM
If such a representation is filed, the respondents/competent authority shall
consider and decide the same by passing a well reasoned speaking order within
a further period of one month from the date of filing such representation.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (HIRDESH)
JUDGE JUDGE
sh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 6/30/2023
12:34:38 PM
