..f^'f^ ")-?..•• IN THE HIGH COURT OFJUMCATUREATBILASPU^ CHHATTISGARH \ WRIT PETITION NO53^ OF 2006 a PETITIONER r Harish Kumar Agrawal, S/o Shri Satyanarayan Agrawal, Aged about 41 years, R/o Akaltara, Distt Janjgir-Champa (CG) Versus RESPONDENTS : .GQ'»1 '^A^ 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Department of Industry, D.K.S. Building, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. The Collector, Disn Janjgir- '-' Champa(CG) ^y ^ j^ 3. The President, Chhattisgarh / Pollution Conservation Board, Raipur (CG) 4. The S.D.O. Revenue, Janjgir, Distt Janjgir-Chainpa (CG) ^5. M/s K.V.K. Bio Energy Private Ltd. PCY. MILLQ&E - Rmn^Tn-i-.. CD1ST- 3B-HJ&K CHBHifiq ^^°s. WRIT PETITION UNDERARtlCLfe 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 2IILAA&QE_THE_EETU1QNER. r^~ r§!^sin ft.^.^. @ =>-^€ -p o^^oa ^s-o0 s s.*r^3t.i?^»' & HGN'BLE SHRS D.R. DE ss r'l^eu^^i iy,-j1 i /^wi11VIUi\fl, ^. versus Harish Kumar Agrawal, S/o Shri Saty'anarayan Agrav/ai, Aged about 41 years, R'o Akaitara, Distt. i-"sf •.'•^' P ^i"/an"s*;^s '€^f^\ iJiCti iJ^H~\^S Sfiitiiipsi \\^.<^Sf of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretaiy, DeDartment of Industrv, D.K.S. Byilding, MantraSaya, Raipur, 3. ^ The Coiteetor, Distt Janjgir-Ghampa (C.G.) Tfie President, ChhatSisgarh Poliution Conserv'ation Board, Raipur (C.G.) 'he S.D.0. Revenue, Janjgir, Distt Janjyii-Ci'iampa (C.G.) M/s. K.V.K. Bio Energy Private Ltd. /^ 4* ^ ;' E I ?<"?.-FU! ^ _ -^. P*!^ *"^ yfr.-^f 1 f"E^'J' T^ ?*^ ljfro E r' /-ti. VSllCiuS=? =°- ,'^fiiciii.fcii U;iS)i.. (Ji/t) ii^fi Present: Shri B.D. Guru, tearned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vinay Harit, iearned Go\'t. Advocate for respondents 1,2 and 4. Shri V.V.S. Murthy, learned Sr. Advocate with Shri Soiapurkar, learned counsel for respondent No.3. itate/ o.h The fo!!owing order of the Court was passed by Should we say that this writ petition filed as Public interest Litigation js totatly irresponsib.'e as wei! as unjustified. It is stated that a Biotechnical Power Plant at A.marta!, District Janj'gir-Champa is estab'ished recentiy. This writ petltion is fsled apprehendlng that when the Biotechnica! Power P'ant st?.rts functioning, it v/ou'd emit ashes and Bio-gases inciuding -A- '•';' hazardous gases and other kind of waste from the plant causing hea'/y po'lution in the area. When that is the allegatlon as could be seen from paragraph 5.2, the on!y other paragraph wherein source of that information is disclosed is paragraph 5.3. In paragraph 5.3, it is stated that the people of the area came to know from sources that respondent No.5 has nof adhered to the norms and procedure prescribed under the Water and Atr Poliution Contro! Act, 1981 (for short "the Act') and has not instailed any po!!ution contro! appiiances to protect ths pollution in the area. If we may say so, the petitioner is not justified in not disciosing even the souree of information to {hs Court. Secondiy, the aiSegation that the 5 respondent has not adhered to the norms and procedure prescribed under the Act, if we may say so, is as vague as it could be and the veracity of th.'s ailegation cannot be verified or tested. Even in the course of argument, learned counsel for the petltioner, despite our asking, did not disc'ose the source of the information of the petitioner and he would only say that the peop'e of the area apprehend aforementioned danger. !t is quite often he'd and reiterated by the Courts that a pro bono pub!ic character berore fil'ng the public interest litigation under Article 226 of t'ne Constitution is duty-bound to take pains to ascertain necessary facts and detaite and he shouid bring it to the notice of the concerned department or higher-ups in the concerned department or authority and oniy in the event of such higher authorities of the administratioR refusing to take appropriate action, he can approach the Constitutional Courts underArticle 226 ofthe 3onstitution. The whole writ petition is based on hearsay and imagination of the petitloner and no required factual matrix is laid on She basis of which we could posslb!y treat this writ petition as pubiic interest litigation and -3- take further steps to sub-serve the publlc Interest. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Sd/- Chief Justice