ttiar s^ c^ 2^^ IN THE HIGH COURT DF GHHATTISGARH :.;AT Bl^ASPURfC.G.) w. p.icy No. [S2,3..^2oio (Single - Bench Other TMatter) <^.... PETITIONER .^- / ^%/ sy .^^ ^\; ^ ^ '%'; ^y ^' / ^' 1. DEV.KUMAR JANGHEL aged about 40 years S/oLateShriP.R.Janghel R/ o Raipur Na]<a/ Dy.rg Tah&Distt..©urg(C.G.) 2. ' :RI]:ES8':SH.^M^- .ag^d-^0U^'^t:.^igli<s' ^ .g/o SEiri S. N'. Sfearma R/'p.^aGlirLarteitbfe.lpBy, Jantci Mai'fcet/^yi-g^ ^:^ati,fe 'Distl.:: ;%u:g (C.G.) YE^SUS RESPONDENTS : . 1. /" STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Throzigh : Principal Secretoi'y Mines & Minerals Departmen: Govt of Clihattisgarh Secretariat D. K. S. Bhawan Ralpur (C.G.) 2. COLLECTOR (Minmg Branch) Durg Distric l- Chhattisgarh Tah and Qisi:t Durg (C.G.) 3. SHRIP. K. AGRAWAI, Incharge Executive Engineer Water Resources Departmer.r Tah and Distt. Durg (C.G.) ^ ^. /4. CHIEF EXECUTIYE OFFICER Municipal Corporation Durg (C.G.) 5. SHRI CHHAGANLAL GUPTA alias Gorelal Gupta aged about 50 years S/o Late Shri Shravanlal Gupta R/o Shivpara Durg Tah and Distt. Durg (C.G.) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0.1879 OF 2010 PETITIONERS Dev Kumar Janghel & Another Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others .-^ RESPONDENTS Post for pronouncement ofthe order on the /^day of November, 2010 ^p^ Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0.1879 OF 2010 PETITIONERS Dev Kumar Janghel &Another Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others RESPONDENTS (Writ petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri V.G. Tamaskar, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents No.1 &2. Shri Shrijit C.S. Nair, Advocate for the respondent No.3. Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Advocate for the respondent No.4. Shri B.D. Guru, Advocate forthe respondent No.5. ORDER (Delivered on this _/S_day of November, 2010) By this petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the legality and vatidity of the order dated 31-12-2009 (Annexure - P/7) whereby the respondent No.5 has been granted the mining lease of murumby the Mining Officerfor Collector, Durg. The indisputable facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioners, are that the petitioner No.1 is the resident of Raipur Naka, Durg and the petitioner No.2 is theresident of Padmanabhpur, Janta Marker, Durg. The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition seeking a declaration that the above-stated lease deed grarrted in favour of the respondent No.5 was not legal and proper on the ground that the respondent No.5 had filed a wrpng affidavit on oath stating that he or his family was not holding any mining licence/lease in the State of Chhattisgarh, which was contrary to ^ ...^.^A~>^ ^ ^'^ "^ E.:^*$l '-r,^";' the facts. The lease was granted without examining the wrong affidavit filed by the respondent No.5. Thus, the mining licence/lease granted infavour of the respondent No.5 maybe quashed. Shri Tamaskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, refers the affidavit dated 5-9-2009 (Annexure - P/3) in support of his contention. On the other hand, Shri Guru, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5, would submit that the instant petition is not maintainable, as the petitioners are strangers and they are not aggrieved, in any manner. They have no locus standi to file this petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India. He further submits that a proper affidavit rectifying its mistake in the earlier affidavit dated 5-9-2009 had been filed on 16-2-2010 (Annexure - R5/1) in accordance with the provisions of Rule 37 of the Chhattisgarh Minor Mineral Rules, 1996. Shri Nair, leamedeounselappearing for the respondent No.3, would submit that since no allegation has been made against the respondent No.3, the respondent No.3 hasnothing to say much in respect of the alleged wrong affidavit filed by the respondent No.5. Shri Kachhawaha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4, would submit that no objection was issued by the Municipal Corporation, Durg. 1 have heard learnedcounsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. There is no dispute that the second affidavit was filed by the respondent %b ^ •^::;:^ ^\ No.5 on 16-2-2010 i.e. after grant of mining lease on 31-12-2009in his favour. 7. On perusal of the entire pleadings, it is found that nowhere it is stated asto how the petitioners are effected by grantof mining lease to the respondent No.5. The petitioners have further not disclosed asto whether they have locus standi tochallenge the grant of mining lease in favour of the respondent No.5 by order dated 31-12-2009. Even in the argument, the objection raised by the respondents to question the locus of the petitioners was avoided. The reference was made only to the false affidavit filed by the respondent No.5. The petitioners have neither made any application for grant of lease or have brought the above-stated facts to the notice ofthe competent authorities. 8. It is well-settled principle of law that a relief can be sought under Articte 226 of the Constitution of India only by an aggrieved person except in case of Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The present petition has not been filed inthe nature of PIL and the petitioners have also not attempted to establish the fact that they are even remotely aggrieved by the impugned order dated 31-12-2009. Thus, this petition is not maintainable at the instance of stranger having no right whatsoever. 9. The Supreme Court in Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal and Others, \n respect of locus standi of the writ petitioners, observed as under: "38. There is no dispute regarding the legal proposition that the rights under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be enforced only by an aggneved person except in the case ^ ' (2002) 1SCC33 ^^ Gowri where the writ prayed for is for habeas corpus or quo warranto. Another exception in the general rule is the filing of a writ petition in public interest The existence of the legal right of the petitioner which is alleged to have been violated is the foundation for invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court underthe aforesaid Article. The orthodox rule of interpretation regarding the locus standi of a person to reach the court has undergone a sea-change with the development of constitutional law inour country and the constitutional courts have been adopting a liberal approach in dealing with the cases or dis-lodging the claim of a litigant merely on hyper'technical grounds. If a person approaching the court can satisfy that the impugned action is likely to adversely affect his right which is shown to be having source in some statutory provision, the petition filed by such a person cannot be rejected on the ground of his not having the locus standi. In other words, if the person is found to be not merely a stranger having no n'ght whatsoever to any post or property, he cannot be non- suited on the ground ofhis not having the locus standi." 10. However, the fact as brought to this Court that the respondent No.5, prima facie, it appears; obtained mining lease on the basis of wrong affidavit, which he attempted to improve by filing a second affidavit, the petitioners may approach the Collector to examine the illegalities, if any, in consideration of the application of the respondent No.5 and others while granting the mining lease. In the event the application is made, it is expected that the Collector shall look into the matter and pass appropriate order in accordance with law and on its own merits, as it appears to be a matter of serious concern. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihom Judge