WPPIL/222/2020
2021 Latest Caselaw 131 UK

      THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

                      AT NAINITAL
          ON THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                            BEFORE:

       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA SINGH
                    CHAUHAN, C.J.

                              AND

     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.

          WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO.222 OF 2020



BETWEEN:

     Vijendra Singh (male) aged about 51 years S/o
     Sunder Singh R/o 63 Tapovam, Newar Government
     Inter College TapovanTehriGarhwal
                                                .....Petitioner
       (By Ms. PrabhaNaithani, Advocate)

AND:

1.     State of Uttarakhand through Chief Secretary,
       Govt. of Uttarakhand, Dehradun.
2.     District Magistrate, Dehradun
3.     Sub     Divisional   Magistrate   Rishikesh    District
       Dehradun.
4.     Nagar     Nigam      Rishikesh    District   Dehradun
       through its Nagar Ayukt
5.     Mayor, Nagar Nigam Rishikesh District Dehradun
6.     Sri Rakesh Singh, Parshad/Member, Ward no. 11
       Nagar Nigam Rishikesh Dehradun
7.     Executive    Engineer    Provincial Division Public
       Works Department Rishikesh District Dehradun.
                                         .....Respondents.
                             2

      (By Mr. Anil K. Bisht, learned Standing Counsel
      for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. Subhash
      Upadhyaya, Advocate for respondent nos. 4 & 5)

      This writ petition coming on for hearing this day,
Hon'ble Shri Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, C.J.
delivered the following order:

                        JUDGMENT

Mr. Vijendra Singh, the petitioner, has filed this Public Interest Litigation for challenging the proposed installation of statue of Late Gaura Devi at the Tehsil Chowk, Rishikesh. According to the petitioner, there are ample number of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, and of this High Court, which prohibit the Nagar Nigam from installing the statue of a living or a dead person in public places. Therefore, the petitioner is aggrieved by the proposed installation of the statue of Late Gaura Devi at the Tehsil Chowk.

2. The learned counsel for the Nagar Nigam Rishikesh, the respondent no. 4, submits that the entire PIL is highly motivated; it has been filed at the behest of one Mr. Meharban Singh Bisht. For, Mr. Meharban Singh Bisht has been trying to convenience the Nagar Nigam, Rishikesh to install a statue of his late father Mr. Baag Singh Bisht, who was a freedom fighter of the area. However, as the Nagar Nigam declined to install his father's statue, Mr. Meharban Singh Bisht has motivated the present petitioner to file the present PIL before this Court.

3. Moreover, according to the learned counsel, large number of correspondence, to which the petitioner would not have access to, has been produced by the petitioner along with the writ petition. These correspondences are either intra- departmental or are inter-departmental, or with Mr. Bisht. Hence, such documents would not be available to the petitioner. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the PIL jurisdiction is being abused by the petitioner for scoring a point against the Nagar Nigam.

4. Lastly, the Nagar Nigam has no intention of installing the statue of Late Gaura Devi at the Tehsil Chowk. In fact, since the Tehsil Chowk is a intersection of two roads, the place needs to be modified, a circle needs to be created for the smooth flow of the traffic. Thus, the only intention of the Nagar Nigam was to correct the flow of traffic, and to beautify the Chowk.

5. This Court has asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to explain as to how the petitioner has access to inter-departmental correspondence, when no Right to Information application has been filed by the petitioner for having access to such correspondences.

6. To this query, the learned counsel has frankly conceded that these documents were made available to the petitioner by Mr. Meharban Singh Bisht. The said answer clearly proves that the present

PIL has been filed only at the behest of Mr. Meharban Singh Bisht.

7. To say the least, the PIL jurisdiction is not meant for being abused by clever litigants. The scope and purpose of PIL is to bring to the notice of the Court, the plight of the voiceless and the faceless persons, or to bring to the notice of the Court the violation of any law, either by the State, or its instrumentality, where such a violation adversely affects the rights and claims of a large segment of population. Therefore, this Court deprecates the practice of any clever litigant to try to misuse the PIL jurisdiction for his own personal ulterior motives.

8. Therefore, while dismissing this writ petition, this Court imposes a cost of `30,000/- on the petitioner. The cost shall be deposited in the Uttarakhand High Court Lawyers Fund within two weeks. The Registrar General is directed to inform this Court if the cost has been deposited within the stipulated period or not. In case the cost is not deposited, this Court will take suo motu cognizance and will issue a contempt notice to the petitioner for having defied the present order.

9. The writ petition is, hereby, dismissed with cost.

(Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, C.J.)

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) Aswal