Madhya Pradesh High Court
Piyush Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 September, 2019
Author: S.C.Sharma
Bench: S.C.Sharma
Writ Petition No.1574/2017 1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE
Writ Petition No.1574/2017
Piyush Jain v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Indore, dated 05.09.2019
Shri Lokendra Joshi, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Ravindra Singh Chhabra, learned Additional
Advocate General for the respondents No.1 and 2 / State.
Shri S.C. Bagadia, learned senior counsel along with Shri Ajay Assudani, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
Shri Pratush Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.4.
Shri Lucky Jain, learned counsel for respondent No.6. Shri Ajay Bagadia, learned counsel for respondent No.10.
The petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ petition by way of Public Interest Litigation and initially three associations were impleaded as respondents namely Madhya Pradesh Lawn Tennis Association, District Table Tennis Association and Corporation Basket Ball Association. Later on, other respondents have also been impleaded namely Madhya Pradesh Lawn Tennis Association, Tennis Complex Trust, Indore Table Tennis Trust, Corporation Area Basket Ball Association and Madhya Pradesh Cricket Association.
02. The petitioner's grievance is that the State of Madhya Pradesh has allotted land to various Associations for establishment of various sports complexes and all kind of activities barring sports activites is taking place in the various clubs / complexes constructed, which are subject Writ Petition No.1574/2017 2 matter of the present writ petition.
03. It has been stated that Health Clubs have been established at various places and as land has been given on concessional rate to various Clubs and Associations, they should be directed to carry out sports activities only.
04. The petitioner has also stated that the respondents have encroached more than the area allotted to them. The petitioner has stated that various representations have been submitted by the petitioner to the authorities from time to time and legal notices have also been served to the State Government through Principal Secretary. Copy of the legal notice (Annexure-P/6) on behalf of Dr. Manohar Dalal, Advocate by one Inder Prajapat (Annexure-P/7) dated 26.07.2014, again by Inder Prajapat dated 08.08.2014, again by Inder Prajapat dated 26.08.2014, by Dr. Manohar Dalal, Advocate dated 18.10.2014 and lastly, Annexure-P/8 again a legal notice by Dr. Manohar Dalal dated 09.08.2016 are on record. In the representations of legal notices, a prayer has been made to the Chief Secretary to register a criminal case against the Associations.
05. Various Interlocutory Applications have been filed from time to time and they have also been heard today and all are being disposed of with the consent of the parties, as the matter is being decided finally by this Court.
06. The State of Madhya Pradesh has filed a reply and and it has been stated that the present writ petition has been filed with an oblique and ulterior motive to settle personal differences. It has been stated that in order to promote sports activities, lands were allotted to various organization Writ Petition No.1574/2017 3 by the State Government vide order dated 23.04.1977 (Annexure-R/1) and it was a policy decision to allot land on lease by charging nominal premium. The respondents have filed format of the lease deed executed by them.
07. It has further been stated that the lease has not been granted to any individual person, it has been granted to various sports organization and based upon the complaint received in the matter, inquiry was conducted by the Commissioner, Indore Division, Indore and the Commissioner, in respect of Madhya Pradesh Lawn Tennis Corporation, has submitted a detailed report on 07.01.2015 holding that there is no violation of the lease deed.
08. It has been stated that in respect of respondent No.4 / District Table Tennis Association, a report was received that the Association is in possession of surplus 0.61 acre of land, which is Nazul land and a demarcation was carried out in the matter on 27.09.2014. A notice was issued to the respondent No.4 / District Table Tennis Association, and thereafter, the writ petition was preferred i.e. W.P. No.2155/2017 and as the matter is sub judice in respect of the excess land, no orders could have been passed in the matter.
09. It has also been stated that earlier also, a notice was issued to the District Table Tennis Association on 15.05.2012 based upon the demarcation report and the Madhya Pradesh Board of Revenue, by an order dated 11.10.2012, has quashed the notices issued by the respondents.
10. It has further been stated that the respondent No.4 has Writ Petition No.1574/2017 4 subsequently, submitted an application for allotment of additional land and the same is pending. It has also been stated by the respondents / State that earnings of respondent No.4 are being used for promoting sports activities only and at no point of time, it has been noticed that sports activities are not being carried out in the premises in question.
11. In respect of respondent No.5 / Corporation Basket Ball Association, it has been stated that again, the matter has travelled up to Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue has passed an order on 20.05.2011 setting aside all the order of the revenue authorities. Thus, in short, respondents No.1 and 2 have stated that they have taken timely action in the matter from time to time and it is not a case where no sports activities are being carried out by the respondents.
12. The other respondents have filed reply and they have filed details of various national and international level of activities, which are going on in respect of the premises in question.
13. The respondent No.10 / Madhya Pradesh Cricket Association has also filed a reply and their stand is that Madhya Pradesh Cricket is a society registered under the Madhya Pradesh Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1976 and the Association was established in the year 1957. The land was allotted vide order dated 18.06.1984 to develop cricket facilities and an international level stadium is in existence, where first class cricket is being played from time to time. They have stated that they have not encroached even an inch of land.
Writ Petition No.1574/2017 514. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. Heard learned counsel for the parties in respect of all Intervention Applications also.
15. It is certainly true that a land has been allotted by the State Government to respondents No.3 to 10 and the Associations / Sport Complexes have established either playground or tennis courts, table tennis courts, stadium etc. etc. for promotion and welfare of the sports activities. It is true that certain ancillary activities are being carried out like having a swimming pool, having a restaurant etc. etc. However, as stated in the reply, entire income generated from other ancillary activities is being used for promotion of sports activities.
16. Return of respondents No.1 and 2 makes it very clear that they will ensure that the income generated, if any, which is surplus income, shall be used only for the purposes of promoting sports activities.
17. One more application has been filed i.e. I.A. No.3144/2019 and it has been stated that Yashwant Club has also been allotted land and their lease has been extended up to 16.06.2021. They have also encroached the land and they are collecting funds.
18. In the considered opinion of this Court, if any encroachment has been made, the revenue authorities shall certainly look into it and shall be free to proceed ahead in accordance with law. It appears that such type of Public Interest Litigation petitions are being filed again and again and earlier also, a writ petition was preferred i.e. W.P. No.564/1996, which was disposed of by an order dated Writ Petition No.1574/2017 6 28.01.1998 with a direction to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department to conduct an inquiry to ascertain whether or not the allottees have violated the terms and conditions of the allotment and the authorities were directed to take appropriate action in accordance with law.
19. Thereafter, a contempt petition was preferred i.e. Conc No.21/2001 and this Court has passed an order on 18.07.2001 and the same reads as under:-
"The applicant had filed one public interest litigation writ petition being W.P. No.564/1996. It was disposed of by order dated 28.01.1998 by passing following directions :-
"Principal Secretary, Revenue Department would examine the terms of grant of land measuring 20 acres to four sports bodies (M.P. Lawn Tennis Association, District Table Tennis Association, Basketball Association and M.P. Cricket Association) and proceed to enquire or cause an enquiry to be conducted by a competent officer of the revenue department of the rant of Additional Secretary and above to ascertain whether or not the allottees of the land had committed any violation or contravention of the terms of the grant. In case it is found that any such violation or contravention was so committed, the competent Authority in the revenue department shall take follow up steps in the light of the relevant provisions of the M.P. Land Revenue Code to deal with such contravention. The exercise shall be undertaken and completed within four months from the date of this order. In case petitioner wants to present his version about any alleged contravention he shall be at liberty to do so before the Authority assigned to require into the matter."
2. Now, the applicant after three years has come forward by this contempt application and complaint non implementation of aforementioned order and hence, request this Court to invoke the contempt jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act and take appropriate action against the non-applicants.
3. In reply, the case of the non-applicants is that Writ Petition No.1574/2017 7 order in question passed by this Court in aforementioned writ was not only take note of but implemented in its real spirit, intent and perspective. The non applicants have then on affidavit of Collector of District set out the steps so far taken by the non applicant in implementing the order in question (28.01.1998 passed in W.P. No.546/1996).
4. Heard Shri M Dalal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Amit Agrwal, learned counsel for the respondents.
5. Having regard the learned counsel for the parties aned perused the reply filed by the non applicants in the light of directions given by the Court, w find no case for initiating any contempt action against the non-applicant. It is not a case where one can conclude that the non applicants kept quiet and did nothing in ensuring implementation of the writ issued. Perusal of the writ issued indicate that non applicants were directed to inquire into the allegations made in the writ and take appropriate action against the person concern if found to have committed any illegality. As observed supra, the reply filed by the non-applicants does initiate taking of effective steps on the basis of the inquiry that was conducted pursuant to impugned directed quoted supra.
6. The contempt jurisdiction of the Court (whether High Court or for that matter any Court) has to be sparingly invoked. In other words, as has been consistently cautioned by their Lordships of Supreme Court while dealing with contempt jurisdiction that every breach of an order / writ does not give rise to invokation of contempt jurisdiction for punishing an authority in order to punish a person is concerned, it has to be further proved beyond reasonable doubts that the breach is a deliberate and committed with an intention to harm the applicant and lower down the authorities of Court. The element of deliberate intention not to obey / comply the writ despite knowledge is one of the necessary ingredient for holding the person guilty. The contempt jurisdiction, therefore, has to be invoked very cautiously and with utmost care.
7. We have observed supra, that non applicants hav etaken steps. This Court cannot examine the worth or / and merits of the steps taken as it is foreign to the contempt jurisdiction. At least in the facts of the case, it is foreign for want of specific directions issued.
8. We, however, hope that the non-applicants dealing with the matter in question would ensure the implementation of the writ issued and would take proper action in accordance with law against all those who found guilty keeping in view the uppermost Writ Petition No.1574/2017 8 interest of State and its large so that confidence of citizen in the administration of justice is not shaken.
9. Taking into account all these factors and with aforesaid observations we hold that no case for contempt having been made out, the contempt notice issued stands discharged."
20. The present Public Interest Litigation is also in respect of the same clubs with addition of certain more clubs / associations / societies.
21. The respondents No.1 and 2 have filed a reply and they have demonstrated the action taken by them from time to time in order to ensure that the sports activities are being carried out.
22. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered in the case of Orissa Olympic Association v/s The State of Orissa & Another reported in (2015) 13 SCC 417 and his contention is that a receiver should be appointed in respect of the association.
23. This Court has carefully gone through the aforesaid judgment. In the present case, the associations are working as per their bylaws. The property of the association is being maintained by their office bearers and based upon the bald allegation made by the petitioner, a receiver cannot be appointed simply because a prayer has been made for the same.
24. The respondent No.4 to 12 before this Court are having their President, Managing Committee and they are managing affairs of the societies in question and sports activities are certainly being carried out by them. It is nobody's case that no sport activity of any kind is taking place in the matter, and therefore, this Court cannot conduct Writ Petition No.1574/2017 9 a roving inquiry in the present Public Interest Litigation in respect of the allegation levelled by the petitioner. However, in case, the petitioner is of the opinion that violation of terms and conditions of lease deed has taken place, he shall be at liberty to bring it to the notice of the revenue authorities and the revenue authorities shall be free to proceed ahead in accordance with law.
25. The scope of interference in a Public Interest Litigation has been considered by the the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal v/s Balwant Singh Chaufal & Others reported in (2010) 3 SCC 402 in paragraph-181 has held as under:-
"181. We have carefully considered the facts of the present case. We have also examined the law declared by this court and other courts in a number of judgments. In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, it has become imperative to issue the following directions:-
(1) The courts must encourage genuine and bona fide 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 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 P.I.L. (4) The court should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL.Writ Petition No.1574/2017 10
(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."
26. In light of the aforesaid judgment and after careful consideration of documents on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the relief prayed by the petitioner cannot be granted in the present writ petition. This Court has already granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the revenue authorities with specific material and in case, the petitioner approaches the revenue authorities, his application shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid, the present writ petition stands dismissed.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(S.C. SHARMA) (SHAILENDRA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ravi
Digitally signed by Ravi Prakash
Date: 2019.09.30 13:38:48 +05'30'