Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh Chaware vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through The ... on 29 May, 2024
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: 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 GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 29 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 13752 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. RAJESH CHAWARE S/O SHRI RAMESH CHAWARE,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
130, IQBALGANJ, JAORA, DISTRICT RATLAM
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. IBRAHIM MANSOORI S/O ABDUL REHMAN, AGED
ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
RESIDENT OF 36, GURUNANAK MOHALLA,
JAORA, DISTRICT RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI NITIN PHADKE, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN
ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT
VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. THE COLLECTOR RATLAM, DISTRICT RATLAM
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER JAORA DISTRICT
RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. THE TAHSILDAR JAORA, DISTRICT RATLAM
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, JAORA THROUGH
THE CHIEF MUNICIPAL OFFICER MUNICIPAL
JAORA, DISTRICT RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
.....RESPONDENTS
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 29-05-2024
18:32:53
2
(BY SHRI ANAND SONI, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)
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 relief:
"a. A writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
appropriate order, writ or direction be issued for quashment of the
resolution no. 121 dated 16.01.2024 (Annexure P-3) passed by the
respondent No. 5 regarding construction of a shopping complex at
Ajmeri Gate, Jaora.
b. Costs of the petition be awarded to the petitioners from the
respondents.
c. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in
the facts of the present case be granted in favor of the petitioners."
3. Brief facts of the case are that the Municipal Council Jaora has passed
the resolution for construction of the aforesaid shopping complex despite the
fact that two previously constructed shopping complexes of the Municipal
Council are lying vacant on account of absence of any takers of the shops
situated therein. Consequently, the Municipal Council has suffered grave
financial loss due to construction of the aforesaid two shopping complexes and
both the complexes are presently lying in triangular shape.
4. However, without even considering the fate of the aforesaid two
shopping complexes the Municipal Council intends to construct yet another
shopping complex by investing crores of Rupees which will result in
unnecessary depletion of the municipal exchequer and wastage of public funds.
Moreover, the construction of the new shopping complex is proposed on a
small and narrow strip of land having a triangular shape which is not suitable for
construction of a shopping complex. The aforesaid strip of land adjoins the city
Four Lane Road of Jaora and in the event of construction of a shopping
complex at that junction of the Ajmeri Gate and city Four Lane, which would be
a grave traffic hazard and would cause accidents at that spot.
5. The Municipal Council Jaora has, however, passed a resolution for
construction of the shopping complex without considering the financial viability
of the project and without considering the aspect of the traffic hazard and
resultant public inconvenience. Thereafter, the petitioners have, therefore, sent a
legal notice to the respondent No. 5 for recalling its resolution for construction
of the proposed shopping complex but the same has proved futile. Hence, the
present petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the action taken by
the respondents in proposing construction of shopping complex at Ajmeri
Gate, Jaora is pertinently illegal and arbitrary. The impugned resolution has been
illegally passed by the respondent No. 5 for construction of shopping complex
on a Nazul Land without obtaining any permission from the State Government.
7. He further contended that the respondents have failed to consider that
construction of the proposed shopping complex shall pose a grave traffic
hazard and several accidents will take place on account of creation of blind
spot. He further stated that the two previously constructed shopping complexes
of the Municipal Council are lying vacant on account of absence of any takers
of the shops situated therein which has caused grave financial loss and both the
aforesaid complexes are presently lying in a ruinous state. However, without
even considering the fate of the aforesaid two shopping complexes the
Municipal Council intends to construct yet another shopping complex by
investing crores of Rupees which will result in unnecessary depletion of the
municipal exchequer and wastage of public funds. Therefore, the present
petition may be allowed and necessary directions be issued.
8. 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
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.
9. 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
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."
1 0 . 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.
11. Heard, learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
12. This Court is in consonance with the submission of State counsel
that in the light of the judgment passed in the case of State of Uttaranchal Vs.
Balwant Singh Chaufal and others (supra), this public interest litigation is
not maintainable.
13. Further, in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. State of W.B.
reported in (2004) 3 SCC 349, the Apex Court has held as under:
"Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used
with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be
extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public
interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity
seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the
armory of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. The
attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be
used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at
redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not
publicity oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As indicated
above, Court must be careful to see that a body of persons or
member of public, who approaches the court is acting bona fide
and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation
or other oblique consideration. The Court must not allow its
process to be abused for oblique considerations. Some persons with
vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial
process either by force of habit or from improper motives. Often
they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity.
The petitions of such busy bodies deserve to be thrown out by
rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary
costs.
The Council for Public Interest Law set up by the Ford
Foundation in USA defined the "public interest litigation" in its
report of Public Interest Law, USA, 1976 as follows:
"Public Interest Law is the name that has recently been given
to efforts provide legal representation to previously unrepresented
groups and interests. Such efforts have been undertaken in the
recognition that ordinary market place for legal services fails to
provide such services to significant segments of the population and
to significant interests. Such groups and interests include the
proper environmentalists, consumers, racial and ethnic minorities
and others."
The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the
applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information
given by him; (c) the information being not vague and indefinite.
The information should show gravity and seriousness involved.
Court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests; (i)
nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless
allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance
of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to
assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such
case, however, the Court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be
extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public
grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the
Constitution to the Executive and the Legislature. The Court has to
act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busy bodies or
meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men.
They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the
name of Pro Bono Publico, though they have no interest of the
public or even of their own to protect."
14. In the present case it is clearly reflected that the petitioner was the
previous counselor of the Municipal Council, Jaora and has argued that he came
to know about the proposed project by way of a news report published in a
local newspaper on 17.01.2024, therefore, he sent a legal notice to the Municipal
Council. This Court in the case of Bhattulal Jain vs. State of M.P. and
others passed in W.P. No. 13853/2023 has held as under:
"11. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vikas
Yadav Vs. State of M.P . passed in W.P. No. 7166/2014 decided
on 14.02.2016 as well as in the case of Dr. Tapan Bhattacharya
Vs. Union of India passed in W.P. No. 1936/2017(PIL) decided
on 15.02.2018 have held that no PIL can be filed on the basis of
newspaper reports and also looking to the antecedents of the
petitioner, the writ petitions were not entertained."
15. In view of the above, this public interest litigation is not
maintainable even otherwise it is settled law that this Court shall not judicially
intervene in the policy matters which have been taken democratically by way of
public institution until and unless a patent illegality does not reflect. In the
present case, the Municipal Council Members have democratically taken a
decision and have passed a resolution for the construction of shopping
complex and thereby this Court restrains itself to exercise the powers vested in
it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the present petition being devoid of merits and substance is
hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
Vatan
