1 2025:CGHC:38641-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPPIL No. 67 of 2025 Prem Narayan Shukla S/o Shri Amrit Lal Shukla, Aged About 47 Years R.O Lig-1356, Housing Board Colony, Saddu, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner Medical Education, Swasth Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Jai Prakash Shukla, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 05.08 .2025 1. Heard Mr. Jai Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State/respondents. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.08.05 18:29:46 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):- “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of mandamus/certiorari/prohibition thereby to declare Rule 13(C)(1) of Chhattisgarh Medical, Dental, and Physical Treatment (Physiotherapy) Under-Graduate Admission Rules 2025 as notified in official Gazette of Chhattisgarh with No. RULE- 503/30/2025/MED Dated 16/07/2025 and the complete Admission Rules 2025 as ultra- vires. 10.2 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of mandamus/certiorari/prohibition thereby to quash impugned Rule 13(C)(1) of Chhattisgarh Medical, Dental, and Physical Treatment (Physiotherapy) Graduate Admission Rules 2025 as notified in official Gazette of Chhattisgarh with No. RULE- 503/30/2025/MED Dated 16/07/2025 and the complete Admission Rules, 2025 being illegal, unconstitutional and ultra-vires. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased direct the respondents to frame suitable legislation to prevent mis-utilization of such quota or any malpractice referable to NRI quota seats, as directed by The Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar Supra and so long as the State does not do it, constitute Committee pursuant to case of Islamic 3 Academy's direction to regulate such quota. 10.4 Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.” 3. The present petition in the style of public interest litigation has been filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the Rule 13(C)(1) of Chhattisgarh Medical, Dental, and Physical Treatment (Physiotherapy) Under-Graduate Admission Rules 2025 as notified in official Gazette of Chhattisgarh with No. RULE- 503/30/2025/MED dated 16/07/2025 and the complete Admission Rules 2025 as ultra-vires and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to frame suitable legislation to prevent mis-utilization of such quota or any malpractice referable to NRI quota seats. 4. Perusal of the pleadings, particularly Clause (II) of the “Subject Matter in Brief,” reveals that the petitioner has described himself as a social activist and a resident of Raipur (C.G.), associated with various social and cultural associations. It is further stated that children from his family and among his relatives are appearing for the NEET examinations. On this basis, the petitioner claims to be a bona fide victim/sufferer and has approached this Court not only in his ‘personal capacity’, but also in a representative capacity, seeking redressal of what he alleges to be a violation of fundamental rights. 5. The said averment, on its plain reading, clearly reflects that the petitioner has a direct and personal interest in the outcome of the 4 present proceedings, as members of his own family and relatives are stakeholders in the NEET examination process. Therefore, although the petition is styled as being in ‘public interest’, the petitioner’s submissions disclose a ‘personal stake’, thereby diluting the element of objectivity and public character expected in a genuine Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The presence of such personal interest runs contrary to the well-settled principles governing maintainability of PILs, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions. 6. Be that as it may, we are not considering whether the pleadings made by the petitioner are correct or not, but the issue for consideration of this Court is whether the writ petition filed in the style of 'Public Interest Litigation' is maintainable or not when the pleadings prima facie show the 'private interest' of the petitioner and not of the interest of 'public at large' ? 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary and Others, (1992) 4 SCC 305 has held thus : “98. While this Court has laid down a chain of notable decisions with all emphasis at their command about the importance and significance of this newly developed doctrine of PIL, it has also hastened to sound a red alert and a note of severe warning that courts should not allow its process to be abused by a mere busybody or a meddlesome interloper or wayfarer or officious intervener 5 without any interest or concern except for personal gain or private profit or other oblique consideration. 109. It is thus clear that only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but not a person for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. Similarly, a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL brought before the court for vindicating any personal grievance, deserves rejection at the threshold.” 8. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2005) 1 SCC 590 has held thus : “4. When there is material to show that a petition styled as a public interest litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal disputes, the said petition is to be thrown out. Before we grapple with the issue involved in the present case, we feel it necessary to consider the issue regarding public interest aspect. Public Interest Litigation which has now come to occupy an administration important of law field in the should not be "publicity interest litigation" or "private interest litigation" or "politics interest litigation" or the latest trend "paise income 6 litigation". The High Court has found that the case at hand belongs to the last category. If not properly regulated and abuse averted, it becomes also a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreck vengeance, as well. There must be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and not merely an adventure of a knight errant borne out of wishful thinking. It cannot also be invoked by a person or a body of persons to further his or their personal causes or satisfy his or their personal grudge and enmity. Courts of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the extraordinary jurisdiction. A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of public interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, (1992) 4 SCC 305 and Kazi Lhendup Dorji v. CBI, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 116. A writ petitioner who comes to the Court for relief in public interest must come not only with clean hands like any other writ petitioner but also with a clean heart, clean mind and clean objective. (See. Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India 1993 Supp (2) SCC 20 and K.R. Srinivas v. R.M. 7 Premchand, (1994) 6 SCC 620.)” 9. Again, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab and Others, (2005) 5 SCC 136 has held thus : “10. 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 allowed to 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 the 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 by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives and try to bargain for a good deal as well to enrich themselves. Often they are actuated by a 8 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.” 10. In aforementioned case laws of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has been held that in the 'Public Interest Litigation', the Court should not permit to adjudicate personal interest or personal vendetta. 11. Having considered the pleadings and submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present petition does not disclose any genuine public interest requiring intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As reflected in Clause (II) of the “Subject Matter in Brief,” the petitioner himself has admitted that children from his family and relatives are appearing for the NEET examinations and, therefore, he is aggrieved by the prevailing situation. He has projected himself as a bona fide sufferer and has claimed to represent others similarly situated. However, the material on record clearly indicates that the petition is primarily rooted in personal and familial interest, and not in any objective or bona fide concern for the general public. While the petitioner has styled the petition as a Public Interest Litigation, the personal stake involved in the subject matter undermines the very foundation of a true PIL. Public Interest Litigation is not meant to serve private or individual grievances and cannot be permitted to be used as a tool for advancing personal agendas under the garb of public cause. 9 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a series of authoritative pronouncements including State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal, (2010) 3 SCC 402, has cautioned against the misuse of PILs and emphasized that such jurisdiction must be invoked only in cases involving genuine public interest, devoid of personal gain, private motive, or political or oblique considerations. 13. In the present case, since the petition has been filed with an element of personal interest and lacks the attributes of a true PIL, this Court is not inclined to entertain it under its writ jurisdiction. 14. In view of above, we are of the view that the grievance projected by the petitioner in the writ petition is not the grievance for 'public interest', therefore, the writ petition filed in the style of 'Public Interest Litigation' is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed. 15. The security amount deposited is directed to be forfeited. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu