HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. [CASE NUMBER] Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And Geology, Khanij Bhawan, Shivsinghpura, Housing Board Colony, Nawalgarh Road, Sikar - 3320001 Rajasthan Petitioner Versus Smt. [ENTITY] W/o Shri [ENTITY], Resident Of Village Dhani Baliwala, Tan Mahwa, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar Respondent
Connected With [CASE NUMBER] Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And Geology, Khanij Bhawan, Shivsinghpura, Housing Board Colony, Nawalgarh Road, Sikar - 3320001 Rajasthan
Petitioner Versus Smt. [ENTITY] W/o Shri [ENTITY], Resident Of Village Dhani Baniwala, Tan Mahwa, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar
Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18620/2017 Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And Geology, Khanij Bhawan, Shiv Singhpura, Housing Board Colony, Nawalgarh Road, Sikar Rajasthan
Petitioner Versus Smt. [ENTITY] W/o Shri [ENTITY], Resident Of Village Bhagera, Tehsil Navalgarh, District Jhunjhunu.
Respondent [CASE NUMBER]
1. [ENTITY] Son Of Shri [ENTITY], Resident Of Ward No. 44, Navalgarh Road, Sikar Rajasthan
2. [ENTITY] Son Of Shri [ENTITY], Resident Of Choudhary Charan Singh Nagar, Ward No. 44, Navalgarh Road, Sikar Rajasthan (2 of 22) [CASE NUMBER]]
3. [ENTITY] Son Of Shri [ENTITY], Resident Of Kisan Colony, Ward No. 44, Sikar Rajasthan
4. [ENTITY] Son Of Shri [ENTITY], Resident Of Village [ENTITY], Chihala, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar Rajasthan
5. [ENTITY] Son Of Shri [ENTITY], Resident Of Village Chihala, Tehsil Danta Ramgarh, District Sikar Rajasthan
6. [ENTITY] Son Of Shri [ENTITY], Resident Of [ENTITY], Chihala, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar Rajasthan
Petitioners Versus
1. [ENTITY] Through The Principal Secretary To Government, Mines And Geology Department, Gov, Government Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan
2. [ENTITY], O/o Dmg, Udaipur Rajasthan
3. Joint Secretary To Government, Mines And Geology Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan
4. [ENTITY], Khanij Bhawan, Udyog Bhawan Campus, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Rajasthan
5. [ENTITY]
6. Smt. [ENTITY] Wife Of Shri [ENTITY], Resident Of [ENTITY], Tehsil Neemkathana, District Sikar Rajasthan
Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 816/2018
1. [ENTITY] Son Of Shri [ENTITY], Resident Of Ward No. 44, Navalgarh Road, Sikar Rajasthan
2. [ENTITY] Son Of Shri [ENTITY], Resident Of Choudhary Charan Singh Nagar, Ward No. 44, Navalgarh Road, Sikar Rajasthan
3. [ENTITY] Son Of Shri [ENTITY], Resident Of Kisan Colony, Ward No. 44, Sikar Rajasthan (3 of 22) [CASE NUMBER]]
4. [ENTITY] Son Of Shri [ENTITY], Resident Of Village [ENTITY], Chihala, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar Rajasthan
5. [ENTITY] Son Of Shri [ENTITY], Resident Of Village Chihala, Tehsil Danta Ramgarh, District Sikar Rajasthan
6. [ENTITY] Son Of Shri [ENTITY], Resident Of [ENTITY], Chihala, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar Rajasthan
Petitioners Versus
1. [ENTITY] Through The Principal Secretary To Government, Mines And Geology Department, Gov, Government Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan
2. [ENTITY], O/o Dmg, Udaipur Rajasthan
3. Joint Secretary To Government, Mines And Geology Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan
4. [ENTITY], Khanij Bhawan, Udyog Bhawan Campus, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Rajasthan
5. [ENTITY]
6. Smt. [ENTITY] Wife Of Shri [ENTITY], Resident Of Village Baghera, Tehsil Nalvagarh, District Jhunjhunu Rajasthan
Respondents [CASE NUMBER]
1. [ENTITY] Son Of Shri [ENTITY], Resident Of Ward No. 44, Navalgarh Road, Sikar Rajasthan.
2. [ENTITY] Son Of Shri [ENTITY], Resident Of Choudhary Charan Singh Nagar, Ward No. 44, Navalgarh Road, Sikar Rajasthan.
3. [ENTITY] Son Of Shri [ENTITY], Resident Of Kisan Colony, Ward No. 44, Sikar Rajasthan.
4. [ENTITY] Son Of Shri [ENTITY], Resident Of Village-
[ENTITY], Chihala, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District (4 of 22) [CASE NUMBER]] Sikar Rajasthan.
5. [ENTITY] Son Of Shri [ENTITY], Resident Of Villege- Chihala, Tehsil Danta Ramgarh, District Sikar Rajasthan.
6. [ENTITY] Son Of Shri [ENTITY], Resident Of [ENTITY], Chihala, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar Rajasthan.
Petitioners Versus
1. [ENTITY] Through The Principal Secretary To Government, Mines And Geology Department, Gov, Government Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan.
2. [ENTITY], O/o Dmg, Udaipur Rajasthan.
3. Joint Secretary To Government, Mines And Geology Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan.
4. [ENTITY], Khanij Bhawan, Udyog Bhawan Campus, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Rajasthan.
5. [ENTITY].
6. Smt. [ENTITY] Wife Of Shri [ENTITY], Resident Of [ENTITY], Tehsil Neemkathana, District Sikar Rajasthan.
Respondents [ENTITY]
1. [ENTITY] Son Of Shri [ENTITY], Resident Of Ward No. 44, Navalgarh Road, Sikar Rajasthan
2. [ENTITY] Son Of Shri [ENTITY], Resident Of Choudhary Charan Singh Nagar, Ward No. 44, Navalgarh Road, Sikar Rajasthan
3. [ENTITY] Son Of Shri [ENTITY], Resident Of Kisan Colony, Ward No. 44, Sikar Rajasthan
4. [ENTITY] Son Of Shri [ENTITY], Resident Of Village [ENTITY], Chihala, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar Rajasthan
5. [ENTITY] Son Of Shri [ENTITY], Resident Of (5 of 22) [CASE NUMBER]] Village Chihala, Tehsil Danta Ramgarh, District Sikar Rajasthan
6. [ENTITY] Son Of Shri [ENTITY], Resident Of [ENTITY], Chihala, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar Rajasthan
Petitioners Versus
1. [ENTITY] Through The Principal Secretary To Government, Mines And Geology Department, Gov, Government Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan
2. [ENTITY], O/o Dmg, Udaipur Rajasthan
3. Joint Secretary To Government, Mines And Geology Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan
4. [ENTITY], Khanij Bhawan, Udyog Bhawan Campus, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Rajasthan
5. [ENTITY]
Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. [ENTITY] with Ms. [ENTITY] Mr. [ENTITY], Addl. G.C. For Respondent(s) : Mr. [ENTITY], Sr. Adv. with Mr. [ENTITY] Mr. [ENTITY] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE [ENTITY] Order 08/05/2019 Above noted batch of writ applications raise identical questions of facts and law, and therefore, have been taken up together for adjudication, by this common order, consented by the counsel for the parties.
(6 of 22) [CASE NUMBER]] For convenience factual matrix from SB [CASE NUMBER] (Mining Engineer, Department of Mines and Geology Vs. Smt. [ENTITY]), is taken note of.
Briefly, the essential skeletal material facts, which needs taken to be note of for appreciation of the controversy raised in the batch of writ applications are: that the respondent-Smt. [ENTITY], is lease holder of lease No.609/2007 and 610 of 2007, for excavation of mineral with terms and conditions stipulated therein. It is pleaded case of the petitioners that in the course of surprise inspection; it surfaced that mining activity was undertaken by the respondent-lease holders, without putting up sign board, poles indicating the boundary of the leased area and undertaking blasting without permission from the Competent Authority. On issuance of notice, response received from the lease-holders so also in view of the complaints received, including a complaint from one Mr. [ENTITY] son of Mr. [ENTITY]; infraction of [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT] (for short "Rules of 1986") was found proved. And on an assessment of illegal excavation, a penalty of Rs.36,89,320/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lacs Eighty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Only), was inflicted by the Mining Engineer, Sikar, which was subjected to [CASE NUMBER]); successfully. Aggrieved of the order on appeal(s), the State-petitioner instituted revision petitions, which have been declined by impugned order dated 16 th January, 2017, of which the petitioners-State as well as the complainant(s); are aggrieved of.
Mr. [ENTITY], learned Additional Government Counsel, reiterating the facts and grounds of the writ applications asserted (7 of 22) [CASE NUMBER]] that mining operations were undertaken by the respondent-lease holders, without determination of [SECTION]. Further, on surprise inspection, other violations also surfaced which were in infraction of [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the Rules of 1986; and therefore, the penalty inflicted by the Mining Engineer could not be faulted.
Learned Additional Government Counsel Mr. [ENTITY], contended that the Appellate Authority so also the authority while adjudicating upon the revision petitions vide impugned order dated 16th January, 2017; fell into gross error for they failed to take into consideration the factual matrix and materials on record as well as the documentary evidence.
Further, the documents, though photocopies, clearly indicated infraction of [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the Rules of 1986.
Mr. [ENTITY], learned counsel for the petitioner-
complainants, who have also instituted connected writ applications ([CASE NUMBER]), endorsing the stand of learned Additional Government Counsel, contended that the petitioners are complainants and residents of the area, who were aggrieved of illegal mining activity and mining operations as surfaced on surprise inspection as would be evident from material evidence available on record.
Learned counsel further pointed out that the [CASE NUMBER], has been instituted against the State-respondents without impleading any other private respondent(s) with a prayer for an order and/or directions against the erring officers of the Department, who are in collusion with the mining lease holders.
(8 of 22) [CASE NUMBER]] In support of his stand, learned counsel relied upon the opinions of the Apex Court of the land, in the case of [PRECEDENT], decided on 9 th December, 1986, wherein the Supreme Court held that in furtherance of public interest an enquiry into the state of affairs, in Public Interest Litigation, it becomes necessary that private litigants assumes the character of Public Interest Litigation, and such an enquiry cannot be avoided, if it is necessary and essential for administration of justice for in the day to day life, there are several glaring instances of misuse of powers by men in authority and position of which the judicial notice is required to be taken.
Per contra, Mr. [ENTITY], learned Senior Counsel while supporting the impugned order dated 16th January, 2017, contended that the issue raised in the instant writ application asserting of alleged violation of the Rules of [SECTION] and 18(21)
(a) of the Rules of 1986; is absolutely baseless and without any factual foundation. Further, there is not even an iota of evidence to sustain the allegations of complainants.
Learned counsel further contended that a glance of the impugned order dated 16th January, 2017, would reflect that determination of penalty to the extent of ten times was made without determination of [SECTION]. An enquiry, into alleged complaint(s) made by one [ENTITY], as contemplated under [SECTION] and [SECTION], of the Rules of 1986; was never conducted. Further, there was not even iota of evidence to substantiate the fact of subletting and/or transfer, in any manner, of the mining lease so as to attract violation of the Rules of 1986.
(9 of 22) [CASE NUMBER]] Learned counsel further pointed out that the Mining Engineer, inflicted the penalty only on the basis of photocopies of the documents and that too in the fact situation, where the transaction in the backdrop of the alleged agreements remains in the realm of uncertainty. Moreover, the Mining Engineer inflicted the penalty in violation of principles of natural justice so much so that [ENTITY], who is stated to be the beneficiary on account of transfer of the mining lease totally denied any transfer and/or transaction on the basis of the photocopies of the alleged agreements which were referred to. Hence, in the factual matrix of the case at hand, the impugned order calls for no interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction of Writ of Certiorari.
In order to fortify his stand, learned counsel has relied upon the opinion of the Apex Court in the case of [PRECEDENT], and relied upon the opinion of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] decided on 14.10.2015.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the relevant materials available on record so also gave my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions at bar.
Indisputably, the process undertaken by the Mining Engineer while inflecting penalty to the extent of ten times was without determination of [SECTION] and without any eqnuiry into the alleged complaint(s), made by one [ENTITY] and/or by other complainants, who are the petitioners in [CASE NUMBER]. It is not in dispute that the Mining Engineer did not undertake any enquiry as contemplated under [SECTION] of the Rules of 1986. So also, no (10 of 22) [CASE NUMBER]] evidence on oath was adduced by the complainants. Thus, while arriving at the conclusion, to inflect the penalty that was interfered with in the appeal and confirmed by the authority declining the revision petition; the Mining Engineer, not only proceeded with in violation of procedure as contemplated under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the Rules of 1986, but also acted in violation of principles of natural justice.
At this juncture, it will be profitable to take note of the contents of the relevant Rules i.e. [SECTION] and [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION], of the Rules of 1986, which reads thus:-
"15. Transfer of Mining Lease:- (1) The lessee shall not without the previous consent in writing of the competent authority:-
(a) Assign, sublet, mortgage or in any other manner transfer the mining lease or any right, title or interest therein, or
(b) Enter into or make any arrangement, contract or understanding whereby the lessee will or may be directly or indirectly financed to a substantial extent by, or under which the lessee's operations or undertakings will or may be substantially controlled by any person or body of persons other than lessee.
3[xxx] [Provided that the lessee of masonary stone may, with the prior permission of concerned ME / AME and subject to such conditions as he may specify therein, allow any Government contractor to install and operate stone gitti crusher till the completion of construction work.
Provided further that such permission shall be given by ME / AME after obtaining registered consent of the lessee and also on the condition that the crusher owner shall use masonary stone produced from the concerned lease area only.
Provided also that wherever required, permission of Revenue and other Departments may also be taken before issuing such permission.] (11 of 22) [CASE NUMBER]] 1 [(1A) Every application for transfer of Mining Lease shall be accompanied by a fee of 2 [Rs. 5000/- for marble, sandstone & granite and Rs. 2000/- for other minerals] and shall be submitted to the Mining Engineer / Assistant Mining Engineer.
(1AA) The Government may subject to the condition specified in [SECTION] transfer whole area of the lease to a person on payment to the Government transfer premium 2 [equal to existing dead rent.] Provided that the lease has remained in force for at least two years from the date of grant. Provided further that such transfer shall not be made if there are any dues outstanding against the transferor or transferee. Provided further also that where the mortgagee is a State Institution or a Bank or a State Corporation, it shall not be necessary for the lessee to obtain the previous consent of the competent authority or previous sanction of the State Government. However lessee shall inform the competent authority about any mortgage in favour of any State Institution, Bank or State Corporation within a period of 3 months from the date of mortgage or assignment.] (21) (a) In case of any breach on the part of the lessee of any covenant or condition contained in the lease, the competent authority may determine the lease and take possession of the said premises and forfeit the security money or in the alternative may impose payment of a penalty not exceeding twice the amount of annual dead rent of the lease. Such action shall not be taken unless the lessee has failed to remedy the breach after serving of 15 days notice;
[SECTION]. Investigation of offences:- (1) Subject to such conditions as may be specified, the 3 [State Government or Director may authorise] either generally or in respect of a particular case or class of cases, any officer not below the rank of 2 [ 3 [Mines Forman/Surveyor or any officer of the State Directorate of Revenue Intelligence] to investigate] all or any of the offences punishable under these rules. (2) Every officer so authorised shall in the conduct of such investigations, exercise the powers conferred by the [ACT], (12 of 22) [CASE NUMBER]] upon an officer incharge of a police station for the investigation of a cognizable offence.
[SECTION]. Power to take evidence on oath:-
The assessing authority or investigating officer not below the rank of an Assistant Mining Engineer and the appellate authority shall for the purpose of these rules have the same powers as are vested in a court under the [ACT] when trying a suit in respect of the following matters namely:- (a) Enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath or affirmation; (b) Compelling production of documents; and (c) Issuing commission for examination of witnesses and any proceedings before the appellate authority, the assessing authority and investigating officer shall be deemed to be a "Judicial Proceedings" within the meaning of [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT]."
A glance of the [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the Rules of 1986 would reflect that complete procedure for investigation of offences and power to take evidence on oath, has been provided under the Rules of 1986. The Mining Engineer, for the reasons best known to him, did not conduct the necessary investigation into the alleged offences and did not call for evidence on oath. That apart, the action of the Mining Engineer was in flagrant violation of principle of natural justice. The procedure for investigation of offences and power to take evidence on oath is with the object underlying the cardinal principles of natural justice.
A glance of notice subsequent to surprise inspection as referred to and relied upon by counsel for the petitioner-
complainant in [CASE NUMBER], would reflect that after having noted the infractions, notice was issued to rectify the irregularities by determining the extent of area of lease deed executed, putting up the required sign board and not to undertake blasting for mining operations without permission from the (13 of 22) [CASE NUMBER]] Competent Authority. What followed thereafter, is not known.
Further, the impugned order dated 16 th January, 2017, takes care of the grievance of the complainants for direction was made to constitute a three member Committee to enquire into the alleged allegations/complaints of infractions of the Rules of 1986.
Be that as it may, the matter was also pending consideration before the Civil Court, wherein an order was made for restoration of possession of the mining lease involved herein. Admittedly, though possession of the mining lease(s), was restored to the mining lease holders/private respondents-Smt. [ENTITY] and Smt. [ENTITY]; but, mining activity has not been allowed for according to Additional Government Counsel, the mining lease holders have not completed the required formalities subsequent thereto.
In the case of [PRECEDENT] (supra), the Apex Court of the land made those observations in furtherance of public interest where an enquiry into the state of affairs in the public interest becomes necessary; in the factual matrix, wherein in the post-graduate medical examinations in the State of Maharashtra, allegations of manipulation in the grade sheets M.D. (Gynae) examination to clear the candidate, a daughter of the Chief Minister of Maharashtra was involved. And adverse remarks against the Chief Minister were made. Thus, the matter was examined with reference to the question whether such adverse remarks were justified as a finding of act or as a comment based on no evidence. The Supreme Court therein considered the judicial pronouncements and duty of the Judges. The factual matrix of the case at hand, is entirely different and distinguishable, and therefore, the opinion has no application to the matters at hand.
(14 of 22) [CASE NUMBER]] The issue of locus standi to apply for Writ of Certiorari with reference to "person aggrieved", "stranger" and "busy Body of meddlesome interloper", was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] (supra), observing thus:
"It will be seen that in the context of locus standi to apply for a writ of certiorari, an applicant may ordinarily fall in any of these categories: (i) 'person aggrieved'; (ii) 'stranger'; (iii) busybody of meddlesome interloper. Persons in the last category are easily distinguishable from those coming under the first two categories. Such persons interfere in things which do not concern them. They masquerade as crusaders for justice. They pretend to act in the name of Pro Bono Publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect. They indulge in the past time of meddling with the judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives. Often, they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity; while the ulterior intent of some applicants in this category, may be no more than spoking the wheels of administration. The High Court should do well to reject the applications of such busybodies at the threshold."
In the case of [PRECEDENT], the Apex Court of the land has held that a person cannot be heard, as a party, unless he answers the description of 'aggrieved party'. At this juncture, it will be relevant to take note of the relevant text of para 59, which reads thus:-
"The complainant has to establish that he has been deprived of or denied of a legal right and he has sustained injury to any legally protected interest. In case he has no legal peg for a justiciable claim to hang on, he cannot be heard as a party in a lies. A fanciful or sentimental grievance may not be sufficient to confer a locus stand to sue upon the individual. There must be injuria or a legal grievance which can be appreciated and not a stat pro rationed valuntas reasons (15 of 22) [CASE NUMBER]] i.e. a claim devoid of reasons. Under the garb of being necessary party, a person cannot be permitted to make a case as that of general public interest. A person having a remote interest cannot be permitted to become a party in the lies, as the person wants to become a party in a case, has to establish that he has a proprietary right which has been or is threatened to be violated, for the reason that a legal injury creates a remedial right in the injured person. A person cannot be heard as a party unless he answers the description of aggrieved party."
In the case of [PRECEDENT].: (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur, relying upon the opinion of [PRECEDENT] (supra), concluded that if the litigant did not fell within the category of the "person aggrieved" and is apparently a "stranger"/"busybody" as such the petition deserves to be rejected on that count alone, observing thus:
"The Hon'ble Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT] (supra) while dealing with the issue of locus standi, held and observed as under:-"
"34. This Court has laid down in a number of decisions that in order to have the locus standi to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under [SECTION], an applicant should ordinarily be one who has & personal or individual right in the subject-matter of the application, though in the case of some of the writs like habeas corpus or quo warranto this rule is relaxed or modi-; fled. In other words, as a general rule, infringement of some legal right or prejudice to some legal interest inhering in the petitioner is necessary to give him a locus standi in the matter. (See [PRECEDENT]; [PRECEDENT]; [PRECEDENT]; [PRECEDENT]; [PRECEDENT]; [PRECEDENT]) (16 of 22) [CASE NUMBER]]
35. The expression "ordinarily" indicates that this is not a cast-iron rule. It is flexible enough to take in those cases where the applicant has been prejudicially affected by an act or omission of an authority, even though he has no proprietary or even a fiduciary interest in the subject-matter. That apart, in exceptional cases even a stranger or a person who was not a party to the proceedings before the authority, but has a substantial and genuine interest in the subject-matter of the proceedings will be covered by this rule. The principles enunciated in the English cases noticed above, are not inconsistent with it.
36. In the United States of America, also, the law on the point is substantially the same. No matter how seriously infringement of the [ACT] may be called into question, said Justice [ENTITY] in [PRECEDENT] this is not the tribunal for its challenge except by those who have some specialized interest of their own to vindicate apart from a political concern which belongs to all.
To have a "standing to sue", which means locus standi to ask for relief in a court independently of a statutory remedy, the plaintiff must show that he is injured, that is, subjected to or threatened with a legal wrong. Courts can intervene only where legal rights are invaded. "Legal wrong"
requires a judicially enforceable right and the touchstone to justiciability is injury to a legally protected right. A nominal or a highly speculative adverse affect on the interest or right of a person has been held to be insufficient to give him the "standing to sue for judicial review of administrative action. Again the "adverse affect" requisite for "standing to sue" must be an "illegal effect". Thus, in the undermentioned cases, it was held that injury resulting from lawful competition not being a legal wrong, cannot furnish a "standing to sue" for judicial relief.
37. It will be seen that in the context of locus standi to apply for a writ of certiorari, an applicant may ordinarily fall in any of these categories: (i) 'person aggrieved'; (ii) 'stranger'; (iii) busybody or meddlesome interloper. Persons in the last category are easily distinguishable from those coming under the first two categories. Such persons (17 of 22) [CASE NUMBER]] interfere in things which do not concern them. They masquerade as crusaders for justice. They pretend to act in the name of Pro Bono Publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect. They indulge in the pastime of meddling with the judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives. Often, they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity; while the ulterior intent of some applicants in this category, may be no more than spoking the wheels of administration. The High Court should do well to reject the applications of such busybodies at the threshold.
38. The distinction between the first and second categories of applicants, though real, is not always well-demarcated. The first category has, as it were, two concentric zones; a solid central zone of certainty, and a grey outer circle of lessening certainty in a sliding centrifugal scale, with an outermost nebulous fringe of uncertainty. Applicants falling within the central zone are those whose legal rights have been infringed. Such applicants undoubtedly stand in the category of 'persons aggrieved'. In the grey outer circle the bounds which separate the first category from the second, intermix, interfuse and overlap increasingly in a centrifugal direction. All persons in this outer zone may not be "persons aggrieved".
39. To distinguish such applicants from 'strangers', among them, some broad tests may be deduced from the conspectus made above. These tests are not absolute and ultimate. Their efficacy varies according to the circumstances of the case, including the statutory context in which the matter falls to be considered. These are : Whether the applicant is a person whose legal right has been infringed? Has he suffered a legal wrong or injury, in the sense, that his interest, recognised by law, has been prejudicially and directly affected by the act or omission of the authority, complained of? Is he a person who has suffered a legal grievance, a person against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something, or wrongfully affected his title to something?
(18 of 22) [CASE NUMBER]] Has he a special and substantial grievance of his own beyond some grievance or inconvenience suffered by him in common with the rest of the public? Was he entitled to object and be heard by the authority before it took the impugned action? If so, was he prejudicially affected in the exercise of that right by the act of usurpation of jurisdiction on the part of the authority? Is the statute, in the context of which the scope of the words "person aggrieved" is being considered, a social welfare measure designed to lay down ethical or professional standards of conduct for the community? Or is it a statute dealing with private rights of particular Individuals?
49. It is true that in the ultimate analysis, the jurisdiction under [SECTION] in general, and certiorari in particular is discretionary. But in a country like India where writ petitions are instituted in the High Courts by the thousand, many of them frivolous, a strict ascertainment, at the outset, of the standing of the petitioner to invoke this extraordinary jurisdiction, must be insisted upon. The broad guidelines indicated by us, coupled with other well-established self- devised rules of practice, such as the availability of an alternative remedy, the conduct of the petitioner etc. can go a long way to help the courts in weeding out a large number of writ petitions at the initial stage with consequent saving of public time and money."
In the case of Janta Dal vs. HS Chowdhary & Ors,;
(1992) 4 SCC 305, the Apex Court of the land emphasising the requirement of locus standi of a party as a mandatory requirement, observed thus:
"62. Be that as it may, it is needless to emphasise that the requirement of locus standi of a party to a litigation is mandatory; because the legal capacity of the party to any litigation whether in private or public action in relation to any specific remedy sought for has to be primarily ascertained at the threshold.
(19 of 22) [CASE NUMBER]]
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 without any interest or concern except for personal gain or private profit or other oblique consideration."
In the case of [PRECEDENT], the Apex Court of the land cautioned the Courts not to allow abuse of process of Court by persons with vested interest, observing thus:
"12. Court must be careful to see that a body of persons or member of public, who approaches the court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique considerations. 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 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."
In the case of [PRECEDENT], the Apex Court of the land reiterated the earlier opinions on the scope of public interest and observed thus:
"13. In Janata Dal case (supra) this Court considered the scope of public interest litigation. In para [SECTION] of the said judgment, after considering what is public interest, has laid down as follows:
(20 of 22) [CASE NUMBER]] "The expression litigation' means a legal action including all proceedings therein initiated in a Court of law for the enforcement of right or seeking a remedy. Therefore, lexically the expression "PIL"
means the legal action initiated in a Court of law for the enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected."
In paras 60, 61 and 62 of the said judgment, it was pointed out as follows:
"Be that as it may, it is needless to emphasis that the requirement of locus standi of a party to a litigation is mandatory, because the legal capacity of the party to any litigation whether in private or public action in relation to any specific remedy sought for has to be primarily ascertained at the threshold."
In para 96 of the said judgment, it has further been pointed out as follows:
"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 busy body or a meddlesome interloper or wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or concern except for personal gain or private profit or other oblique consideration."
In subsequent paras of the said judgment, it was observed as follows:
"It is thus clear that only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone have as 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."
(21 of 22) [CASE NUMBER]]
14. It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, the time which otherwise could have been spent for 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, un- represented 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 unauthorized 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 loose faith in the administration of our judicial system."
Applying the principles, deducible from the opinions referred to hereinabove, to the factual matrix of the case at hand; it can safely be concluded that the petitioners in [CASE NUMBER], cannot fall within the definition of "person aggrieved".
Moreover, the Appellate Authority as well as Revisional Authority, interfered with the penalty inflicted by the Mining Engineer, in view of infraction of well settled cardinal principles of natural justice and violation of procedure contemplated under [SECTION] and [SECTION], of the Rules of 1986. That apart, the matter as to complaints has also been taken care of by the directions made for constitution of a three member Committee and act accordingly.
For the reasons aforesaid and in view of singular factual matrix of the matters at hand, the writ applications fail, and are, hereby dismissed.
However, in the facts and circumstances of the matters, there shall no order as to cost.
A copy of this order be placed in each of the file.
([ENTITY] [ENTITY]/s-149-155 Powered by [ACT] (www.tcpdf.org)