1 / 8 2025:CGHC:21580-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPPIL No. 53 of 2025 Ved Kumar Patel S/o Shri Rupdhar Patel Aged About 49 Years R/o Village- Khorigaon, Block- Baramkela, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - The State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector District- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) 3 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sarangarh, District- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) 4 - The Tahsildar Baramkela, District- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) 5 - The Station House Officer Police Station- Baramkela, District- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) 6 - Gram Panchayat, Khorigaon Through The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat- Khorigaon, District- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) 7 - Dileshwar Naik S/o Shri Khemanidhi Naik Aged About 55 Years R/o Village- Khorigaon, Block- Baramkela, District- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) 8 - Smt. Nalini Naik W/o Shri Dileshwar Naik Aged About 52 Years R/o Village- Khorigaon, Block- Baramkela, District- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Roop Naik, Advocate For State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board Per, Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 09/05/2025 ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.05.15 12:11:41 +0530 2 / 8 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s): “ 10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/direction/order by directing the respondent State Authority to resolve /solve the problem of water drainage system in the street of the Village Khorigaon and front door of the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/direction/order by directing the State Authority to take appropriate action against the respondent No.7 & 8 to remove/demolish the illegal construction of house/shed over the agriculture land bearing Khasra No.232/7 area 0.024. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem fit and cost of the petition may also be awarded.” 2. Mr. Roop Naik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the present petition has been filed against the arbitrary action on the part of Respondents No.7 & 8 due to the water has been stored in the street of village. He would next submit that the Respondents No.7 & 8 have constructed the house/shed and the boundary wall over the agriculture land due to which the water drainage system of village has been affected. He would next submit that the petitioner is the Teacher and posted as Government Primary School, Dongipani and the petitioner is the permanent resident of 3 / 8 Village Khorigaon, Block Baramkela, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh. He would next submit that the petitioner has made representation before the Collector and the Police Station on 03/02/2025 & 23/03/2025 and also before the Tehsildar on 26/03/2025. He would next contend that the construction so made by the Respondents No.7 & 8 is illegal because before making such a construction no permission was obtained from the appropriate authority. Therefore, it is prayed that the State authorities may be directed to take appropriate action against the Respondents No.7 & 8. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel would object the locus standi of the petitioner for filing this writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and contended that it was filed by him with an oblique motive to vindicate his personal grievances which is not maintainable. 4. 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 bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations. 5. 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 4 / 8 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. 6. 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 Singh Chaufal & Ors., 2010 AIR SCW 1029 and other judgments of the Apex Court on the issue, has dismissed the public interest litigation. 7. 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 5 / 8 filing some petitions with oblique motives. We think time has come when genuine and bona ide 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 efective steps to prevent and cure its abuse on the basis of monetary and non- onetary directions by the courts.” 8. 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 6 / 8 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 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. 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 proit 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 7 / 8 creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system.” 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab & Others reported in (2005) 5 SCC 136, wherein the appointment of the appellant as Auction Recorder was challenged, has 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. 10. The petitioner has no locus standi to file the present PIL for the reliefs claimed therein as it appears that for oblique motive, the present PIL has been filed by the petitioner and the petitioner can avail the remedies available to him for approaching the appropriate Court/forum for redressal of his grievance, if any. 11. The grievance which the petitioner has raised in the present petition 8 / 8 can be agitated before the competent civil Court as the dispute appears to be of civil nature and even if there is any criminal action on the part of the respondents No.7 & 8 in that situation also the petitioner can avail the appropriate remedy of approaching the competent Court by filing an application under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. {Now Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)}. 12. 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 petitioner has alternative efficacious remedy for redressal of his grievance as raised in this petition. 13. The instant PIL is, accordingly, dismissed. 14. The security amount of Rs.15000/- deposited by the petitioner stands forfeited. SD/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ashu