1 2025:CGHC:16621-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPPIL No. 43 of 2025 1 - Faiz Kazi S/o Shri Saleem Kazi Aged About 31 Years R/o House No. D39, Agyeya Nagar, Vyapar Vihaar Road, Thana - Civil Lines, Bilaspur - 495001 (C.G.) 2 - Dineshwar Prasad Soni S/o Shri Ramji Prasad Soni Aged About 47 Years R/o Gram Chathirama, Post - Latori, Tehsil - Ambikapur, District - Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh 497001 3 - Avinash Anant S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Anant Aged About 29 Years R/o House No.-125, Galli No.-3, Krishnanagar, Post- Kalibadi, Raipur - 492001 (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department Of Water Resources, Mantralaya, Shivnath Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Chhattisgarh Anti-Corruption Bureau (A.C.B.) Village - Dharampura, V.I.P. Road, Near P.T.S. Chowk, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 490009 3 - Directorate Of Enforcement, Government Of India Through - Assistant Director, Raipur Sub-Zonal OfÏce, A-1 Block, Pujari Complex, New Dhamtari Road, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Shri Alok Kumar Agrawal S/o Shri Radheshyam Agrawal Aged About 54 Years OfÏce Of Engineer-In-Chief, Department Of Water Resources, Mantralaya, Shivnath Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Shri Indrajeet Uikey Engineer-In-Chief, Department Of Water Resources, Mantralaya, Shivnath Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 6 - Shri R.K.Nagariya The Then Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Project, Department Of Water Resources, Mantralaya, Shivnath Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District – Raipur,Chhattisgarh 7 - Central Bureau Of Investigation Village - Dharampura, V.I.P. Road, Near P.T.S. Chowk, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh - 490009 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner No. 1 For Petitioner(s) No. 2 and 3 : In person Dr. N.K. Shukla, Sr. Adv along with and Mr. Shailendra Shukla, Advocate For Respondent(s) No. 1 and 2 : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General For Respondent No. 3 : Dr. Sourabh Kumar Pande, Advocate. For Respondent No. 7 : Mr. B.Gopa Kumar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 09.04.2025 1. Heard Dr. N.K. Shukla, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Shailendra Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2, Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No. 7. 2. The petitioner(s) have filed this petition praying for following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to produce the entire records, which leads to place the respondent no.4 Shri Alok Agrawal under Suspension and thereafter its revocation. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to order dated 17/09/2021 (ANNEXURE P/17) whereby the order of Suspension of the Respondent No-4 has been 3 revoked. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the State Government to initiate enquiry against the Chief Engineer and Engineer-in-Chief, in the interest of justice. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the authorities to suspend the respondent No.4 in view of the wrong written submissions made by him on 10.08.2021 (Annexure P/12) and got the revocation of suspension order. 10.5 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the authorities to registered a criminal case against persons involved, who forwarded the application of the respondent No.4 for revocation of suspension order without verifying the correctness that EOW has not filed closer report and he was not in jail despite not closer report was filed and the respondent No.4 was in Jail for more than 3 ½ years. 10.6 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct for Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Inquiry in this matter against Respondent No.4, 5 & 6. 10.7 Cost of the petition may kindly be granted to the petitioner. 10.8 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted, in the interest of justice” 3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.4 was working as Assistant Engineer in the Water Resources Department. The respondent No. 2- Economic Offence Bureau/Anti Corruption Bureau (for short, ACB), Raipur arrested him and a First Information Report was registered against him bearing Crime No.56/2014 for the offences defined under Section 13 (1) (e) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Pursuant to the registration of criminal case by the EOB/ACB Raipur, respondent No.4 was placed under suspension under Rule 9 (1) (b) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short, the Rules, 1966). The allegation 4 against the respondent No.4 was that he acquired property disproportionate to his known source of income. T 4. Another crime bearing Crime No.05/2015 was registered by the Economic Offences Investigation Bureau/Anti Corruption Bureau on 19/01/2015 for acquisition of property disproportionate to the known sources of income. Thereafter, for registration of the said criminal cases, the respondent No. 4 was placed under suspension on 03/01/2015 and thereafter was arrested on 11/04/2018 in connection with crime No. ECIR/RPZO/03/2015 dated 30/03/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The PML Act, 2002 was attracted in case of respondent No.4 because EOW/ACB of State of Chhattisgarh registered the First Information Report bearing Crime No.05/2015 for the offences punishable under Section 13 (1) (e) & 13 (2) of the P.C. Act as well as Sections 109, 120B, 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC and the charge-sheet was filed on 15/06/2015. After due investigation, the Enforcement Directorate (for short, the ED) has submitted the final report in the Court of Special Judge (PML Act), Raipur and the learned Special Judge has taken cognizance on 16/07/2018 against respondent No.4 for the offences punishable under Section 3 & 4 of the PML Act. The allegation against respondent No.4 was that while he was posted as in-charge Executive Engineer, Kharang Water Resources Division, Bilaspur, a public servant, in connivance with other accused hatched conspiracy and prepared forged documents and records and thereby misused and abused his ofÏcial position and not only caused financial loss to the Government but also amassed huge wealth through corrupt means, which is alleged to be disproportionate to his known sources of income. According to the ED, the respondent No. 4, while posted as Incharge Executive Engineer, in 5 Kharang Water Resource Division, Bilaspur from 04/07/2008 to 05/01/2015, he amassed Rs. 16,51,31,878/-. 5. Dr. Shukla, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners submit that the respondent No. 4 is a man of corrupt nature and he was placed under suspension by the Department. He filed an application for grant of regular bail which was allowed by this Court on 23.08.2019. After his release, he moved an application on 10.08.2021 for revocation of his suspension order giving false information to the Department that he was never arrested by the EOW/ACB in connection with Crime No. 56/2014 and the ACB had filed its closure report. This submission of the respondent No. 4 was totally false as he was duly arrested. Vide order dated 17.09.2021, the Under Secretary, Water Resources Department, revoked the suspension of the respondent No. 4. On 02.02.2024, the petitioner No. 2 represented to the State authorities regarding revocation of the suspension of the respondent No. 4 and thereafter sent a reminder on 05.08.2024 also. Thereafter, on 04.03.2025, the petitioner No. 1 filed an application regarding the case and its details of the respondent No. 4. It is also the contention of the petitioners that the respondent No. 4 claims himself to be 71% physically disabled and on that basis, he obtained bail from the High Court. Despite being lodged in jail for more than 4 years, he his suspension has been revoked. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 and 2, Dr. Sourabh Kumar Pande, learned counsel appearing for the ED as well as Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, learned counsel for the CBI jointly submit that this PIL is not maintainable as there is no element of public interest in this petition. They object the locus standi of the petitioners for filing this writ petition 6 as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and contend that it has been filed by the petitioners with an oblique motive to vindicate their personal grievances which is not maintainable. The It is further submitted that the petitioners have not disclosed their credentials properly except to state that the petitioner No. 1 is a practicing Advocate and the other petitioners are public spirited persons. 7. Having considered the rival submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record, it is relevant to mention that it is the duty of this Court to ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive and oblique notice behind filing of PIL. In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, the Courts must encourage genuine and bonafide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations. 8. The Courts should, prima facie, verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL. It is also well settled that 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. The Courts should ensure the jurisdiction in public interest is invoked for genuine purposes by persons who have bona fide credentials and who do not seek to espouse or pursue any extraneous object. Otherwise, the jurisdiction in public interest can become a source of misuse by private persons seeking to pursue their own vested interests. 9. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in the case of Gurmet Singh Soni Vs. State of U.P. and others : 2021 (5) ADJ 409, noticing the decision of the Apex Court in State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant 7 Singh Chaufal & Ors., 2010 AIR SCW 1029 and other judgments of the Apex Court on the issue, has dismissed the public interest litigation. 10.The Courts cannot allow its process to be abused for oblique purposes, as was observed by the Supreme Court Court in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 349. In Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court had discussed the three stages of a PIL which has been discussed above. The Supreme Court, in Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra) states as to how this important jurisdiction, i.e., PIL has been abused at Para 143 by observing as under: “143. Unfortunately, of late, it has been noticed that such an important jurisdiction which has been carefully carved out, created and nurtured with great care and caution by the courts, is being blatantly abused by filing some petitions with oblique motives. We think time has come when genuine and bona fide public interest litigation must be encouraged whereas frivolous public interest litigation should be discouraged. In our considered opinion, we have to protect and preserve this important jurisdiction in the larger interest of the people of this country but we must take effective steps to prevent and cure its abuse on the basis of monetary and non-monetary directions by the courts.” 11.The Supreme Court, in Holicow Pictures (P) Ltd. v. Prem Chand Mishra, reported in (2007) 14 SCC 281 which has relied Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, reported in (1992) 4 SCC 305, observed as under: “12. It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but express our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue 8 delay in service matters—government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of cases wherein huge amounts of public revenue or unauthorised collection of tax amounts are locked up, detenu expecting their release from the detention orders, etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or ofÏcious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity, break the queue mufÏng their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the courts and as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system.” 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab & Others reported in (2005) 5 SCC 136, the appointment of the appellant as Auction Recorder was challenged. The Court held that the scope of entertaining a petition styled as a public interest litigation and locus standi of the petitioner particularly in matters involving service of an employee has been examined by this Court in various cases. The Court observed that before entertaining the petition, the Court must 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. The 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. 13. The petitioners have no locus standi to file the present PIL for the reliefs claimed therein as it appears that for oblique motive, the present PIL has 9 been filed by the petitioners who being in a legal profession is well aware of the remedies available to him for approaching the appropriate Court/forum for redressal of his/their grievance, if any. 14. In the present case, we are not satisfied that this is a genuine petition filed in public interest so as to invoke the jurisdiction in the public interest under Article 226 of the Constitution. Even otherwise, the petitioners have alternative efÏcacious remedy for redressal of their grievance as raised in this petition. 15. The instant PIL is, accordingly, dismissed. The security deposit of Rs. 15,000/- also stands forfeited. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.04.15 17:26:32 +0530