HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D!‘.’!SION BENCH comm: HGN‘BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA. c J He? ’ LE SHRI sUN:L KUMAR 3::‘49A, J. Writ Petition (PIL) No.1397l2'008 Petitioners Nischav Baioai, aged about 3O years sen of. 8hr? AK Bajpai, RIG Shankai: Nagar, Raipur (CG) 2 Abhishek Mishra, aged about 24 years, son 0f Shri CM Mishra, R/o Badha§para, Raipur (CG) VERSUS State of. Chh‘attisgarh through the Secretary, Depaament of General Administration, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG) 2 The Collector, Durg, Distt Durg (CG) 3 The Deputy Director, Town and Country Manning, Burg, Déstrict Bum (CG) 4 Premchand Chopra, son of Jamuna Lal son of Vima: Medicai, Sadar Bazar, Raipur(CG) 5 Devcharan son of Sudan, Village Choraha, Tah Dhamdyha, Distt Burg (CG) 6 Mohan son of Sukhau, vinage Choraha, Tah ohamdha, Distt Burg (CG) 7 Baidav son of Bhokal, viiiage Choraha, Tah Bhamdha, Distt Burg (CG) 8 Anup Shukla son of not known, R/o Sriram Complex, Near State Bank, VIH Kumhari, Tah Bhamdha, Distt Burg WU) 9 KP Sahu, son of not known Rio SI’I, Neeharika Parisar Sirsa Chowk, Bhffai -— 3, Distt Burg (CG) Respondents T) If‘f‘ Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Present : Shri GS Agrawal, $enior Advocate with Shri KR Nair, counse: for the appenants. Shri WS Murthy, Deputy Advocate General with Shri Akhil Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State] respondents No.1 to 3. ORDER (29m Jury, 2mm) of the Court was passed by The foliowing order Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admission. 2) The petitioners have filed this writ petition styled as ‘Pubiic interest Litigation' for the following reliefs : “7.1 That a writ in form of Mandamus be issued against the respondents directing them to see that the stream (Dharasa) bearing Khasara No.387, is not covered, altered, encroached or leveled or changed otherwise by anyone and a direction be given to take necessary actions against the wrong doers under the law. 7.2 That the respondents be directed to stop the iliegal developments being done on Kh No.384 and 389/1 of village Chorha, PH No.46, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Burg and to take necessary actions against the wrong doers under the law and stopping them from carryingout plotting in contravention of law. 7.3 Any other reiief for which the petitioners may be found entitled under the law for the ends of justice.” 3) A bare perusal of Annexure P/3 wouid reveal that the petitioners are having adjacent lands to the land bearing Khasra / *r rrsereehj‘ i @ No.389/1 and 389/2, the development whereof is alieged to be mega] by the petitioners in the writ petition. 4) As the documents Filed by the petitioners with the writ petition itself reveal that the petitioners have personal interest in the matter, we decline to entertain the writ petition filed by the petitioners as ‘Public interest Litigation" 5) The Writ Petition, thereforer is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to avail the other remedies which may be available’to the petitioners under the relevant provisions of law for the redressal . of their grievances projected in the writ petition. 6) The Security amount of Rs.5,000f— deposited by the petitioners be refunded to the petitioners. Sd/— Sunil Kumar Sinha i Judge m r 7 m 1’ Sd/— 3 ChiefJustice 1; 7‘ padma ;