1 2025:CGHC:11029 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1252 of 2025 1 - Pradeep Kumar Agrawal S/o Govind Lal Agrawal Aged About 50 Years R/o C- 20, Row House, Chouhan Town, Junwani, Shanti Nagar, Police Station Supela, Bhilai, District- Durg ( C.G. ). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department of Urban Administration Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.), 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.). 3 - The Collector District- Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan- Gandai ( C.G. ). 4 - Sub Divisional Officer ( Revenue ) Gandai, District- Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan- Gandai (C.G.). 5 - Additional Chief Execution Officer State Urban Development Tribunal, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar (C.G.). 6 - Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat Gandai, District- Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan- Gandai ( C.G. ). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Panel Lawyer. K GOWRI SANKARA RAO Digitally signed by K GOWRI SANKARA RAO Date: 2025.03.07 18:21:41 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 06/03/2025 1. By the present petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction towards the respondent authorities not to construct the public toilet on the land bearing Khasra No.123 situated at P.H. No.12 Nagar Panchayat Gandai, District: Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan- Gandai. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner of land bearing Khasra No.122 situated at P.H. No.12 Nagar Panchayat Gandai, District: Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai and he constructed a complex over the said land, after obtaining due permission from the concerned authorities. In the said complex, the Punjab National Bank is also operating. He would submit that in front of the said land of the petitioner, the government land bearing Khasra No.123 is situated, wherein the respondent authorities proposed to construct the public toilet despite the fact that already two public toilets were situated within a radius of 1 km. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would support the impugned construction activity. She would submit that the authorities are going to construct the public toilet upon the land bearing Khasra No.123, which is a government land. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents. 5. It is not in dispute that the land bearing Khasra No.123 is a government land and the petitioner failed to establish that as to what prejudice caused to him in constructing the public toilet upon the government land. 6. The Government of India, Department of Urban Development issued the guidelines for Swachha Bharat Mission (SBM) in the month of December, 2014, wherein Clause 6 of the guidelines provides for Sarvajanik Sauchalay, for ready reference, Clause 6.1 is quoted below:- “6.1 स्वच्छ भारत मिशन (शहरी) के अंत्ቇत, राज्यों तथा शहरी स्थानीय मिनकायों को सुमिनቐኌत करना हो्ቇा मिक ्ቚत्येक शहर ें पया्቎ संख्या ें सावजमिनक शौचालयों का मिनाण मिकया ्ቇया है। शहर के भीतर सभी ्ቚुख स्थानों ें आने-जाने वाली अस्थायी जनसंख्या को इसें सቜኌ0लिलत मिकया जाना चामिहए।" 7. Pursuant to the aforesaid guidelines and to make convenient to the public at large, the respondent authorities decided to construct the public toilet upon the government land bearing Khasra No.123. 8. The Swachh Bharat Abhiyan is the most significant cleanliness campaign by the Government of India and the campaign aims to achieve the vision of a ‘Clean India’. 4 9. In fact, the petitioner has no locus to challenge the subject action of the respondent authorities as they are going to construct public toilet that too in the interest of public at large. 10. It is the trite law that ordinarily, the person who seeks a relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must have personal or individual right in the subject-matter and the word “ordinarily” includes, a person who has been prejudicially affected by an act or omission of an authority. 11. It is also the settled law that a person shall have no locus standi to file a writ petition if he is not personally affected by the impugned order or his fundamental rights have neither been directly or substantially invaded nor is there any imminent danger of such rights being invaded or his acquired interests have been violated ignoring the applicable rules. (See: Vinoy Kumar v State of U.P. and Others)1 12. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is crystal clear that there is no illegality of infirmity in the action taken by the respondent authorities. 13. Accordingly, the present petition fails and deserved to be dismissed at the motion stage. sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri 1 (2001) 4 SCC 734