1 2025:CGHC:49997-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPPIL No. 91 of 2025 1. Pushpendra Rajwade S/o Shri Kouleshwar Rajwade Aged About 40 Years President Of Koriya Jan Sahyog Samiti Its Office Address Ward No. 2, Mahamaya Colony, Sonhat Tahsil Sonhat Distt. Koriya, Chhattisgarh. 2. Jaichandra Jagannath Sonpakar S/o Shri Jagannath Sonpakar Aged About 43 Years Executive President Of Koriya Jan Sahyog Samiti Its Office Address Ward No. 2, Mahamaya Colony, Sonhat Tahsil Sonhat Distt. Koriya, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Secretariat At Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department Of Higher Education, Secretariat At Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Collector Baikunthpur, Distt. Koriya, Chhattisgarh. 4. Superintendent Of Police Baikunthpur, Distt. Koriya, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Jai Prakash Shukla, Advocate For Respondents/ State: Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.10.09 10:29:30 +0530 2 Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 08/10/2025 1. Heard Mr. Jai Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. for the respondents/ State. 2. The petitioners, who are the President and Executive President of the Koriya Jan Sahyog Samiti, have filed this petition (PIL) praying for following relief:- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to call the entire records pertaining to this case. 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of mandamus/ prohibition/certiorari thereby to quash the impugned order dated 31-07-2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by learned Collector Baikunthpur Koriya, C.G.) vide which the questioned land area 0.5000 hec out of area 2.092 hec. of khasra no 288 which was earlier lawfully allotted/purportedly allotted in name of Principal, Government graduation college, Baikunthpur has been re-allotted in name of S.P Office, Koriya, Baikunthpur (C.G), be quashed after declaring it unconstitutional, illegal and arbitrary. 10.3 Hon'ble court may kindly further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to take lawful/ practical/reasoned decision representation dated 10- 09-2025 (Annexure P/10) made by the petitioners, within stipulated time period and further to pass any order which deems fit including cost of the petition in the interest of Justice. An affidavit in support of this writ petition is being filed herewith.” 3. (a) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the President and Executive President of a duly 3 registered society named as “Koriya Jan Sahyog Samiti” registered under the provisions of C.G. Society Registration Act 1973. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that land measuring 0.585 hectare out of 0.690 hectare, 2.092 hectare, and 0.640 hectare out of 0.854 hectare, comprised in Khasra Nos. 287, 288 and 289 respectively, situated at Village Talwapara, Tahsil Baikunthpur, the then District Surguja, was duly allotted in favour of the Principal, Government Graduate College, Baikunthpur (now Government Ramanuj Pratap Singh Deo Post- Graduate College) by the Additional Collector, Baikunthpur, after following all prescribed legal formalities and revenue procedures. (b) It is contended that pursuant to the said allotment order, possession of the land was handed over to the college administration, and the institution has been in lawful and continuous possession thereof ever since. Learned counsel further submitted that despite repeated correspondences made by the college authorities requesting for mutation of the said land in the revenue record in its name, no steps were taken by the revenue authorities. Consequently, a revenue case was initiated by the then Principal, whereupon, after due procedure, the Tahsildar, Baikunthpur, passed an order dated 24.08.2009, directing the concerned Patwari to make entry of the said land in the revenue record in favour of the college. However, even this order remained unimplemented. It was urged that instead of complying with the said lawful direction, the Collector, 4 Baikunthpur, without issuing any notice or affording opportunity of hearing to the college administration, passed the impugned order dated 31.07.2025, whereby a portion of the very same land already allotted and possessed by the college was re-allotted to the Superintendent of Police Office, Baikunthpur, District Koriya for construction of its building. The said order, it is argued, is arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and violative of the principles of natural justice. (c) Learned counsel highlighted that the college, which was initially established as a graduate college, has since been upgraded as a post-graduate lead college of District Koriya, providing higher education to students from nearly 250 villages and 192 Gram Panchayats, with a present strength of about 3500 students. The college has submitted proposals for extension of buildings and infrastructural development under the National Education Mission Fund, for which the disputed land is essential. It was therefore contended that the impugned order dated 31.07.2025 passed by the Collector, Baikunthpur, is unsustainable in law, having been issued without authority, without affording opportunity of hearing, and in disregard of the earlier valid allotment and possession. The learned counsel thus prayed that the said impugned order be quashed and set aside, and the authorities be directed to record the land in the name of the college in the revenue records in accordance with the earlier allotment and order of the Tahsildar dated 24.08.2009. 5 4. Learned counsel for the respondent/ State submits that presently khasra No. 288 measuring 2.092 hect is registered as government land situated in village Talwapara. He further submits that only a proposal was made to transfer the piece of land to the college but further proceedings were not carried out. He further submits that on the basis of requisite permission/NOC issued by various Departments of the Government i.e. the Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Baikunthpur, Office of the District Education Officer, Korea, Assistant Engineer (Sub-Division), Chhattisgarh, State Public Works Department, Vaikunthpur, Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Vaikunthpur and Gram Panchayat Talwapara, Janpad Panchayat, Baikunthpur, District Korea and following the procedure, out of the subject land i.e. 2.092 hectares the part of some land admeasuring 0.500 hect. was allotted by the Collector in favour of the Superintendent of Police for construction of S.P. Office. He further submits that there is no illegality in the order of the collector dated 31.07.2025. Learned State counsel would further 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 their personal grievances which is not maintainable. 5. 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 6 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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 7 (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.” 9. 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 8 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 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, 9 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.” 10. 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 10 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. 11. In the present case; the subject land is the Government land that too a small piece of 0.500 hectares out of total land of 2.092 hectares has been allotted for construction of the office of Superintendent of Police; after following the due process of law and on the basis of permission/NOC issued by the Government Departments the Collector passed the impugned order; and thirdly on account of allotment of subject land, there is no hurdle/obstruction in running the college. Though, the proceeding of allotment has been drawn by the Collector after issuance of notice & seeking NOC from several Department neither the college nor the petitioners have raised any objection to the said proposed allotment. Hence, there is no illegality in the order impugned by which the land in question has been allotted for the Construction of Office of Superintendent of Police. Even the petitioners have also failed to demonstrate their locus to challenge the allotment order of Collector. 12. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, we are not satisfied that this is a genuine petition filed in public interest so 11 as to invoke the jurisdiction in the public interest under Article 226 of the Constitution. 13. The instant PIL is, accordingly, dismissed. The security amount deposited by the petitioners is directed to be forfeited. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti