Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sarif Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 February, 2016
1
W.P. No.7876/2015
9.2.2016
Ms. Bhagyashree Sugandhi, learned counsel for the
petitioner. Shri P. Bhargava, leaned Dy. AG for the respondent
No.1/State.
Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for th respondent No.2.
Shri Manish Verma, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
They are heard.
2. This Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that he is a local Businessman based at Shujalpur and is permanent resident of Shujalpur and had no personal interest in the matter. The writ petition has been filed by him in view of saving the amount of public exchequer, which is being spend by respondent No.2, on a construction of a waiting room and a ticket counter, which is not needed/required in the fact situation and would be an infructuous expenditure. He prays for the following reliefs which reads as under:-
1. By an appropriate writ, directions or order the respondents be directed not to raise any construction over the open area of 100 x 100 at Bus stand, 2 Shujalpur City as it is not required and would cause loss to public exchequer.
2. Any other writ, direction or order as is deemed fit in the circumstances be passed/issued.
3. Entire cost of litigation be awarded to the petitioner.
3. In the earlier round of litigation, the Single Bench of this Court while deciding M.P. No.643/1985 on 20/09/1995 has held that by Circular No.3 of Samvat 1998 published in Gwalior Government Gazette dated 23.3.45 the Gwalior State ordered that all open lands within the limits of Municipalities in Gwalior State which were not assessed to land revenue, shall be recorded in the name of the Municipality in settlement papers.
4. In view of the aforesaid, admittedly, the open lands within the limits of Municipality Shujalpur is owned by respondent No.2. Municipal Council. They are raising construction over a piece of land for waiting room, rest room, ticket counter etc. It is alleged that this construction is made in the middle of the bus stand. The petitioner has challenged that if the construction is made then there will be paucity of space which will be insufficient for the parking of the buses further more the open area of the bus stand is used for various religious and cultural activities like tajiya, the independence day celebration, republic day celebration etc. It is also stated that there is already a 3 waiting room in the shopping complex constructed earlier therefore there is no necessity of construction which is been raised at this place.
5. In reply, the Municipal Council has stated that there is no material as to how the development of the bus stand has detrimental effect on the basic civil rights of the general public of Shujalpur city, the petitioner also do not disclose as to how the rights of the public at large are infringed or prejudiced, thus, it can safely be assumed and presumed that the present petition is nothing but a ploy to gain political mileage and is also and attempt to hamper the development work which is being carried out by the Municipal Council for the benefit and convenience of the public at large.
6. The Municipal Council has constructed the shopping complex which surrounds the bus stand from two side and on the other side private houses are constructed meaning thereby, the bus stand is surrounded on three sides by construction and in the middle open space is left for parking of the buses.
7. One of the stand of Municipal Council is that development and construction is also necessary due to fast approaching Simhastha Mela, 2016 in Ujjain, Shujalpur city is barely 104 km away from Ujjain there will be hundreds of people 4 travelling for Ujjain from Shujalpur and also from nearby village and therefore, it was necessary that the bus stand is developed and the construction of waiting room, tickets counter, washrooms etc, is undertaken in a proper manner.
8. Ms. Mini Ravindran, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 has also pointed out the resolution dated 2/11/2015 and letter dated 17/11/2015 so also the photographs annexed along with the return and submitted that all the statutory permission has been granted and, thereafter, they started the construction activities. After construction of bus stand, the general public will be benefited hugely furthermore the apprehension of the petitioner that the tempo/ auto owners shall be losing their livelihood is ill-founded as they are already being given a place near to the bus stand in the shopping complex. She also pointed out that no person from general public has come and said that the construction is in any way detrimental to their interest thus, in such circumstance, it can safely be said that this petition is not a Public Interest Litigation, but the present petition has been filed at the instance of private parties.
9. A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of public interest litigation will alone have a 5 locus standi and can approach the court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. [See Kusum Lata V/s. Union of India & Ors., reported as 2006(7) Scale 41]
10. On due consideration of the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that all the statutory permissions were granted much prior to the date of the activities, there is no legal bar to construct the waiting room, rest room, ticket counter etc. Even otherwise this writ petition has not been filed by public interested persons.
11. For these reasons, the writ petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (J.K. Jain)
Judge Judge
pn/