1 2025:CGHC:21565-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPPIL No. 52 of 2025 1 - Bijendra Kumar (In Person) S/o Late Shri Dayashankar Aged About 47 Years R/o Village - Jilda, Block - Khadagwa, Anusuchit Area District - Koriya (C.G.) 2 - Parasnath S/o Phoolsay Aged About 44 Years R/o Village - Pondi, Block - Khadagwa, Anusuchit Area District - Koriya (C.G.) 3 - Shivkumar S/o Surajprasad Aged About 42 Years R/o Village - Kasra, Block - Baikunthpur, Anusuchit Area District - Koriya (C.G.) 4 - Rampratap S/o Shivnarayan Aged About 50 Years R/o Village - Jilda, Block - Khadagwa, Anusuchit Area District - Koriya (C.G.) 5 - Rajkumar Yadav (In Person) S/o J.P. Yadav Aged About 72 Years R/o Kenapara, Baikunthpur, Anusuchit Area District - Koriya (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Evam Rajya Sarkar Ke Adhin Varishtha Duty Paddhari Sangathan/ Samanya Prashasan Vibhag, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Union of India Vidhi Evam Nyay Mantralaya, Vidhai Vibhag New Delhi Evam Rajya Sarkar Ke Adhin Vidhi Evam Vidhai Karya Vibhag, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Varishtha Duty Paddhari Vyakti Chhattisgarh Rajya 3 - Chhattisgarh State Election Commission Shri Ajay Singh, Nirvacan Bhawan, Sector-19, North Block, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Evam Mukhya Nirvachan Padadhikari ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.05.09 18:57:48 +0530 2 Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Bhawan, Purana Mantralaya Parisar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Collector Cum District Election Officer District - Koriya, Ke Pad Par Padasth Anusuchit Area Surguja Sambhag, Chhattisgarh Ke Jilo Mein 5 - First Appellate Authority Shri Sanjay Vishwakarma, Controller, Rajbhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Rajkumar Yadav, in person For Respondents No.1 and 4 : Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Ventakesh Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Mr. R.S. Marhas, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 09.05. 2025 1. Heard Mr. Rajkumar Yadav, petitioner in person. Also heard Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents No.1 and 4, Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General appearing for respondent No.2 as well as Mr. Ventakesh Pandey, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. R.S. Marhas, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. 2. By way of this writ petition styled as ‘Public Interest Litigation’, the petitioners have prayed for following relief:- 3 “10.1 छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य निर्वााच आयोग एर्वां मुख्य निर्वााच पदाधिकारिरयों द्वारा अुसूधिचत क्षेत्रों एर्वां जजाधित क्षेत्रों में कराये गये निर्वााच को भारत के राज्य क्षेत्र के संनिर्वाा अुच्छेद 243(ड.) एर्वां 243 ('य' 'ग'), पंचायत राज अधिनियम के ारा 343 (ड) का उल्लंघ करे के कारण असंर्वाैानिक घोनि/त निकया जार्वाे। 10.2 छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य के अुसूधिचत एर्वां जजाधित क्षेत्रों में हुये निर्वााच को रद्द करे एर्वां माीय राज्यपाल के प्राधिकार के अुपाल में ये निर्वााच कराे के लिलए निर्वााच आयोग एर्वां मुख्य निर्वााच पदाधिकारिरयों को निद6श देे हेतु परमादेश रिरट जारी निकया जार्वाे। 10.3 संयुक्त राज्य मध्यप्रदेश के अुसूधिचत क्षेत्रों को मूल रूप में अुसूधिचत क्षेत्र भाग 'क' राज्य आदेश 1950 (सा.आ.-9) निदांक 23.01.1950 के तहत् निर्वानिर्दिदष्ट निकये गये अुसूधिचत क्षेत्र जजाधित क्षेत्रों के भू- भाग में स्थि@Aत क्षेत्रों में अाधिकृ त भूनिम अधिग्रहण / अंतरण को अमान्य घोनि/त निकया जार्वाे। 10.4 छत्तीसगढ़ सरकार से ीधितकृ त भूनिम अधिग्रहण से "उपसग" अुसूधिचत क्षेत्र हटाे और भूनिम आनिदर्वाासी जजाधितयों / समुदाय को र्वाापस करे का निद6श निदया जार्वाे। 10.5 छत्तीसगढ़ सरकार एर्वां राज्य चुार्वा आयोग, मुख्य निर्वााच पदाधिकारिरयों को निद6श निदया जाये निक अुसूधिचत क्षेत्र एर्वां जजाधित जाधित क्षेत्रों में राज्य का काू लागू करे से पहले राजपत्र के अधिकारिरत राजपत्र मेमो दर्शिशत लोक अधिसूचा/ आदेश की पूर्वा मंजूरी सुनिधिHत करें। 10.6 राज्य सरकार द्वारा जारी निर्वालुप्त अुसूधिचत शब्द राजपत्र के परिरपाल में vuqlqfpr जजाधित क्षेत्रों में निर्वा@तारिरत संगठ / निर्वाभाग को अमान्य घोनि/त निकया जार्वाे। 10.7 र्वारिरष्ठ ड्यूटी पदारिरयों/ राज@र्वा बोड के ेतृत्र्वा में 4 संचालिलत संगठ / निर्वाभाग के पदाधिकारिरयों द्वारा अुसूधिचत क्षेत्र एर्वां जजाधित क्षेत्र के व्यनिक्तों के ाम पर जारी एस.टी., एस.सी. ओ.बी.सी. ओ.बी.सी. के प्रमाण पत्रों को अमान्य घोनि/त निकया जार्वाे। 10.8 सूचा के अधिकार के तहत् मांगी गई जाकारी दर्शिशत जसूचा आर्वाेद अुसार निदलायी जार्वाे। जाकारी देे पर जसूचा आर्वाेद/ अपील आर्वाेद के साA शूल्क/ कर के रूप में दी गई राशिश भारत सरकार के करेंसी जो र्वातमा में समय में एक रूपये के माक मूल्य अुसार र्वाापस निदलाे के बाबत् परमादेश जारी निकया जार्वाे। 10.9 हम 'क' राज्य क्षेत्र के निर्वाासिसयों को राजभा/ अधिनियम 1963 के प्रार्वााों के तहत् बाये गये राजभा/ नियम 1976 नियम 12 की ारा 3(3) के तहत सुर्वााई ” करे एर्वां पक्ष रखे का अुमधित दी जार्वाे। 3. Basically, the petitioner has challenged in this public interest litigation that the Panchayat Elections cannot be held in the Scheduled Area under Article 243 of the Constitution of India along with other reliefs mentioned in the petition. 4. Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General submits that Schedule-V of the Constitution of India has given a power to the State to conduct Panchayat elections in the Scheduled Areas and in the State of Chhattisgarh, there is no such notification for banning elections in the Scheduled Areas. 5. Schedule-V of the Constitution of India reproduced below for easy reference:- “5. Law applicable to Schedule Areas.- (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution 5 the Governor [***] may by public notification direct that any particular Act of Parliament or of the Legislative of the State shall not apply to a Scheduled Area or any part thereof in the State or shall apply to a Scheduled Area or any part thereof in the State subject to such exceptions and modifications as he may specify in the notification and any direction given under this sub-paragraph may be given so as to have retrospective effect. (2) The Governor [***] may make regulations for the peace and good government of any area in a State which is for the time being a Scheduled Area. In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such regulations may— (a) prohibit or restrict the transfer of land by or among members of the Scheduled Tribes in such area; (b) regulate the allotment of land to members of the Scheduled Tribes in such area; (c) regulate the carrying on of business as money-lender by persons who lend money to members of the Scheduled Tribes in such area. (3) In making any such regulation as is referred to in sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph, the Governor [***] may repeal or 6 amend any Act of Parliament or of the Legislature of the State or any existing law which is for the time being applicable to the area in question. (4) All regulations made under this paragraph shall be submitted forthwith to the President and, until assented to by him, shall have no effect. (5) No regulation shall be made under this paragraph unless the Governor [***] making the regulation has, in the case where there is a Tribes Advisory Council for the State, consulted such Council.” 6. 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. 7. 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 7 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. 8. 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 Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors., 2010 AIR SCW 1029 and other judgments of the Apex Court on the issue, has dismissed the public interest litigation. 9. 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, (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 8 think time has come when genuine and bonafide 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.” 10. The Supreme Court, in Holicow Pictures (P) Ltd. Vs. Prem Chand Mishra, (2007) 14 SCC 281 which has relied Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary, (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 9 death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue 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 officious 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 muffing 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.” 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Gurpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Others, (2005) 5 SCC 136, the appointment of the 10 appellant/petitioner 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. 12. Considering the matter in its entirety and after considering the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the State, this Court is of the opinion that in the State of Chhattisgarh, there is no ban on conduct of Panchayat elections in the Scheduled Areas as there is no notification of the Governor for prohibition of the same. Even otherwise, the pleadings made in this petition as vague and sketchy as well as nothing can be made out as to what the actual grievance of the petitioners as they have clubbed various issues in one single petition, which cannot be adjudicated and further, no reasons or grounds have been assigned as to why 11 such prayers should be acceded to. Except to the fact that the petitioners as agriculturists, nothing has been stated about their credentials. 13. In the result, we do not find any good ground to invoke the jurisdiction in the public interest under Article 226 of the Constitution. The instant Public Interest Litigation is, accordingly, dismissed. The security amount so deposited by the petitioners shall stand forfeited. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu