Madhya Pradesh High Court
Biharilal Prajapati vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 November, 2016
WP-2697-2016
(BIHARILAL PRAJAPATI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
18-11-2016
Shri Monesh Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Amit Seth, Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
Petitioner is a Colonizer and as is evident from Annexure- P/2 he has been granted permission to develop a colony in khasra No.385/2/2 area 0.200 hectare. Petitioner approached this Court initially by filing a Public Interest Litigation being W.P. No.16129/2015 and it was his grievance that in Gram Panchayat Sili, Tehsil Gunour, District Panna ,respondent No.5 Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat has established a cremation ground near the residential area which is not proper. Taking note of the aforesaid the said writ petition was disposed of on 23.09.2015 directing the Collector to look into the matter. Petitioner places reliance on a report of the Tehsildar Annexure-P/6 dated 02.01.2015 to say that the area where the cremation ground is situated is near the residential area and the same is not permissible.
However, in pursuance to the order passed by this Court on 23.09.2015 in W.P.No.16129/2015, we find that the Collector has caused a detailed enquiry into the matter and by an order passed Annexure-P/1 on 28.01.2016 has recorded a detailed finding in para 5 of the aforesaid which goes to show that the crematorium is situated in this area which is a Government land for more than 50 years and the Gram Panchayat is also developing a Shanti Bhawan and various other religious establishments in the area where the Crematorium is already situated in that area. The Crematorium is said to be situated in khasra No.386 area 1.554 hectare and it is only indicated that within a period of about 10 years, about 10-12 houses have come-up in the area in question more than 25 to 30 feet away. From the facts that have come on record it seems that the petitioner, as a developer of the colony, has developed a colony in the area and wants removal of the crematorium which is established in the area for more than 50 years,. The Crematorium is on government land. That being so, now at the instance of the petitioner in this PIL we see no reason to interfere in the matter in the light of the specific finding recorded by the Collector. The petitioner wants to ventilate his personal grievance with reference to his business interest in the garb of public interest litigation. Its a misuse of the process of public interest litigation and therefore we are not inclined to interference in the matter particularly in the light of the specific finding recoded by the Collector.
Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
(RAJENDRA MENON) (ANURAG SHRIVASTAVA) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE sukla