Madhya Pradesh High Court
Piyush Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 July, 2024
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1 WP-14512-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
ON THE 23rd OF JULY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 14512 of 2023
PIYUSH JAIN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri (Dr.). Manohar Dalal, learned counsel for the petitioner through V.C.
Shri Bhuwan Gautam, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari 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 against the order dated 14.07.2021.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.2/IDA has given certain parcels of land to respondents no. 3 to 14 on lease on concessional rate in compliance of the order passed by the respondent no.1 /State dated 14.07.2021. Respondent no.2 with ulterior motive in order to prevent the newspapers from publishing news against IDA in utter violation of the orders passed by this Court has gone beyond the jurisdiction and allotted the land to the newspapers at concessional rates. Against the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN Signing time: 26-07-2024 19:07:20 2 WP-14512-2023 said action of respondent no.2, petitioner had filed W.P. No. 11616/2020 which was dismissed as infructuous in the light of order passed by respondent no.1 dated 14.07.2021. Thereafter, petitioner had filed a review petition of the order passed in W.P. No. 11616/2020 which was also dismissed. Petitioner filed W.P. No. 8163/2022 which was withdrawn to file it in the format of public interest litigation. Respondent no.1/State has passed order dated 14.07.2021 to allot the commercial land to respondent no. 2 to 14 for the scheme of IDA for the year 2021-22 as per Collector Guidelines of the year 2007-08. The order passed by respondent no.1/State dated 14.07.2021 has been passed in utter disregard of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of K.K. Bhalla Vs. State of M.P. & Others reported in AIR 2006 SC 898 and, therefore, this public interest litigation has been filed to safeguard the public property worth Rs. 500 crores.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent no.2 in connivance with respondent no.1 had got the order dated 14.07.2021 in favour of respondent no. 3 to 14 to give them undue advantage and prevent them from publishing incriminating news in the newspapers which is uncalled for. The precious public land worth Rs. 500 crore is put at stake in order to give favour to the respondent no.2. From the order dated 14.07.2021, it is apparent that undue advantage has been given to the respondents no. 3 to 14 by leasing out the commercial land as per Indore Development Scheme 2021 on the basis of the Collector Guidelines of the year 2007-08. Under such circumstances, the order dated 14.07.2021 is liable to be set aside.
4. 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN Signing time: 26-07-2024 19:07:20 3 WP-14512-2023 has 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.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent/State relying upon 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.Signature Not Verified Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN Signing time: 26-07-2024 19:07:20
4 WP-14512-2023 (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."
6. 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 and the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. Heard, learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
8. 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN Signing time: 26-07-2024 19:07:20 5 WP-14512-2023 Chaufal and others (supra), this public interest litigation is not maintainable.
9 . 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN Signing time: 26-07-2024 19:07:20 6 WP-14512-2023 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."
10. This is the fourth round of litigation by the same petitioner with the same parties. Petitioner filed Public Interest Litigation vide W.P. No. 11616/2020 which was dismissed as infructuous in view of the fact that IDA and State Government have Signature Not Verified Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN Signing time: 26-07-2024 19:07:20 7 WP-14512-2023 taken decision which is the subject matter of challenge in writ petitions filed by respondents therein before the Single Bench. Thereafter, a review petition vide R.P. No. 265/2022 was filed for review of the order passed in above mentioned writ petition. R.P. No. 265/2022 filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. Thereafter, petitioner again impleading the same respondents had approached this Court by filing another writ petition bearing W.P. No. 8163/2022 which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition as Public Interest Litigation. Time and again, petitioner has approached this Court agitating the same issue which is pending adjudication before Single Bench, canvassing the same as an issue related to public welfare. Applying the principle of res judicata, this petition is not maintainable as held by the Apex Court in the case of P. Bandopadhyay & Others Vs. Union of India in Civil Appeal No. 3149 of 2019 arising out of SLP (C) No. 10663 of 2016 . Relevant extracts of the SLP are reproduced below for convenience and ready reference:
8.7. The decision in S.V. Vasaikar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [2003 (2) Mh. L.J. 691 : 2003 (4) Bom CR 79] was not challenged before the Supreme Court, and has since attained finality. Therefore, the relief sought by the Appellants before the High Court was barred by the principle of res judicata.
Reference can be made to the decision of the Constitution Bench in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.2 wherein Sharma, J., on behalf of the five j udge bench, held:
"35...It is well established that the principles of res judicata are applicable to writ petitions. The relief prayed for on behalf of the petitioner in the present case is the same as he would have, in the event of his success, obtained in the earlier writ petition before the High Court. The petitioner in reply contended that since the special leave petition before this Court was dismissed in limine without giving any reason, the order cannot be relied upon for a plea of res judicata.Signature Not Verified Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN Signing time: 26-07-2024 19:07:20
8 WP-14512-2023 The answer is that it is not the order of this Court dismissing the special leave petition which is being relied upon; the plea of res judicata has been pressed on the basis of the High Court's judgment which became final after the dismissal of the special leave petition. In similar situation a Constitution Bench of this Court in Daryao v. State of UP 3 held that where the High Court dismisses a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution after hearing the matter on the merits, a subsequent petition in the Supreme Court under Article 32 on the same facts and for the same reliefs filed by the same parties will be barred by the general principle of res judicata. The binding character of judgments of courts of competent jurisdiction is in essence a part of the rule of law on which the administration of justice, so much emphasised by the Constitution, is founded and a judgment of the High Court under Article 226 passed after a hearing on the merits must bind the parties till set aside in appeal as provided by the Constitution and cannot be permitted to be circumvented by a petition under Article 32..."
(emphasis supplied) Albeit the decision of the Constitution Bench was in the context of a Writ Petition filed under Article 32, it would apply with greater force to bar a Writ Petition filed under Article 226, like the one filed by the present Appellants, by the operation of the principle of res judicata."
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion and various enunciation of law regarding PILs as well as applying the principal of res-judicata, this Court cannot entertain such kind of frivolous petition seeking the relief as sought for by the petitioner as this is the fourth round of litigation, in as much as, the petitioner has first preferred W.P. No. 11616/2020(PIL) which was dismissed as infrucuous vide order dated 31.01.2022. Thereafter, petitioner sought review of the order dated 31.01.2022 passed in W.P. No. 11616/2020(PIL) which was again dismissed reiterating the same issue. The petitioner thereafter preferred another petition registered as W.P. No. 8163/2022 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN Signing time: 26-07-2024 19:07:20 9 WP-14512-2023 which was dismissed with liberty to file fresh petition as Public Interest Litigation. Now, the present petition has been filed as Public Interest Litigation. If such petitions would be entertained, this Court would be flooded with writ petitions. Under such circumstances, it would be apt to saddle a with cost of Rs. 25,000/- upon the petitioner for wasting precious time of this Court which could have been utilized for hearing more pressing matters.
13. Accordingly, petitioner is directed to deposit cost of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) in the account of President and Secretary H.C. Employees Union H.C. (Account No.63006406008, Branch Code No. 30528, IFSC No. SBIN0030528, CIF No. 73003108919) within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and thereafter compliance report be filed before the Registry, failing which, the Registry shall list the the matter as PUD qua cost.
13. The instant public interest litigation being not maintainable and is same hereby dismissed.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI) (DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA)
JUDGE JUDGE
sh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 26-07-2024
19:07:20