D.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5190/2005 Babu Singh & ors. v. State of Rajasthan & ors. Date of order : 26.03.2008 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI ... Mr. J.P.Joshi for the petitioner Mr. V.K.Mathur for respondent no.2 Mr. Rajkumar Mehta for respondent no.5 Mr. Manish Shishodia for respondent no. 6 Mr. K.L.thakur, Addl. Advocate General Heard Mr. J.P.Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State, learned counsel for the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board and learned counsel for Rajasthan State Industrial and Investment Corporation Limited. Substantially, the grievance of the writ petitioners in this Public Interest litigation is that without seeking clearance from the Ministry of Environment, Government of India a chunk of land has been given to the Rajasthan State Industrial and Investment Corporation Ltd. (RIICO) and the pieces of the lands are being allotted to the entrepreneurs by RIICO. It appears that in compliance of preceding order of this Court clearance from the Ministry of Environment was already obtained. On questioning as to the locus standi of the writ petitioners, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they are cattle grazers and since the pasture land is being utilised for industrial units, they will be deprived of the right of livelihood. It appears from the materials on record that a handful of persons came - 2 - before this Court by way of this PIL without making representation before the authorities ventilating their grievances. It does not appear to be a case where the State Government had not paid any heed to the grievances of the writ petitioners. Rather, it is case where for the first time grievance is being raised before this Court in PIL. In our view, before raising such grievances the writ petitioners should approach the State authorities first for redressal of their grievances and in case their interest is not protected against the discriminatory and arbitrary action of the RIICO or the State authorities they would have been at liberty to approach this Court for redressal of their grievances. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case as referred to above, in our view, the writ petitioners may represent before the authorities concerned and in case it is so done the same will be looked into and considered by a speaking order by competent State authorities. At the same time we make it clear that in case grievances are not genuinely looked into and redressal orders are passed, the petitioners will be at liberty to approach this Court again. With these directions and observations, this PIL application is dismissed. However, we make it clear that we have not opined on merit of the case. (M. N. BHANDARI ) J. (NARAYAN ROY),C.J. mathur/