HIGE-l COQRT OF JUWCATURE CHH&TT£SGARH : BIL§t$F5§Jf§ EJNI$§0N EEN€§H $GF§AM : HQWSLE S§wiRi 3R. Wé‘Y‘AK, (2‘9. HDN’BLE SHR! MK. SHREVAiEeTAVA, J. Writ Pe‘iitian Noi37 of 2W5? PETmaNER : A suo moio taken writ peiiiion Versus RES?CNDEN?$ 1. Un%on of mdia, thmugh the $ecreiary, Mmistry cf Env§rcnment & Forat, Pas’yavafan Bhawan, EGG Comgiex, New DEIhi —— 1.10 003 2. Siate of Chha‘sfkisgarh ihraugh $ecretary, Ministry mf Envirorament & Fera5i, ParNahan Bhawan Manfraiayax Raipur [CG .3 3. The Principal Chief Comewatar of F0¥e$t Govemmem of Chhawsgam, RSIpur {3G3 4. Divisienal Feregt Officer, Katghora Fore$t Division, Katghom, District : Kama {C ,G .1 The Jain? Divi3ioiiai Foresi‘ Officér, Katghora Fwresi D‘wishm Katghma. DE5trict: Kama {C .G .1 6. Aryan Coai Benéficiaiion Pvi. Lid. a company incarperated and registereé um‘m fhs ccmgames 2m, having its registered office ai New Delhi and a coai benefécéatian wani at viiiage Digika, Tahsil Kafghora, Disst: Kerba [Q61 U1 Pre$ent : Dr‘ Shaiiesh Ahuja, Seamed Amicus Cufiae. Thakur Vijay Singh, §eamed Asst. Soiicitor Generai for Union of india f {ewendem No.1 Shri Pras‘nant Mishi’a, learned Ackii. Advccaie General far the State! respaiidenis 2 to 5. Shri KN. Bhatt and $hri Manindra Shfiva3tava‘ learned Em Advocates with $hrl Amrite Das, learned counsel fer respondent No.6. ORAL OREER (Passed an 11m Decemben 2mm} The foiiowing oral ordér of i‘ne Court was passed by the Court. Mitiaily, ihi$ writ petition was med by $hri Manish Yadav and Shri Ashish Purhoi‘t claiming to be pro bono pubiico i0 espouse the public interest. They compiained to the Cour: ihat the em respondent which ie engaged in ihe business of coai beneficiation has iiiegaiiyestabiished a Coai Beneficiation Plant at viiiage Chakabura on agricuiiurai iand in vioiation of Section ”i55 (8-ee) and (8-?) of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short “the code"). This Court \iide order dated 13i11f20€$6 directed deietion oi‘ ihe names of $1M Nianis‘n ‘Y’adav and S‘shri Aehieh Pumhit from the array er the parties and to treat this writ periiion as a sue more taken writ petition. We appointed Dr. Shaiiesh Ahuia, iearned Member of this Ber to assisi the Court ee amicus curiae anci direoted io post the wrii: peiiiion on 30*“ November, 2006 for examining whei‘ner this; writ peiition invoivee enforcing any pubiio iaw obiigaiion or whether ihe Court should undertake adjudication of the issue brought before the Court by way of ihis writ petition in oubiic interest. Since the Bench was not aveiiabie on 30“” November, 2005 the ceee is iisted today for the Same purpoee. (2) We have heard EJr. Sahaiiesh Ahuje, ieamed Amicue Cm‘iae, Thakur Vijay $ing‘n, iearned Asst. $oiicitor Generai for Union of india/ respondentNo.’i, Shri Prashant Mishra, ieerned Add}. Advocate General for the Statei respondents 2 to 5 and Shri KN. Bhatt and Shri Manindra Shrivastava, learned Sr. Advocates with $hri Amrito Des, learned counsel for respondent No.6. (3} Owasing the writ petiticn. the State of Chhaiiisgarh and ifs authomies as weH as the 5w respondent have filed iheir separaie retums. in paras 6 and 7 cf the return fiied by the state of Chha‘itisgarh and iis authori‘ties, ihe maieriai aliegatwns made in ‘ihe writ pe‘imon have been squareiy denied. The allegatien of the petiiioner that the 6“” respondent has encroached upon the forest iand is aiso squarely denied by ihe $tate Authorii‘ies. There is n0 need for us to undertake the resoiution of the issue wheiher the 6t“ respondent has encreached upon the ferest iand in the garb ef lease of iand gmnted to it by the $tate of Ch‘nattisgarh anti its authorities. if in fact such eneroechmeni has taken pieces i‘t is cpen fer the affected persens or the iocei authorities io bring it te the noiice of the concerned Severnment aui’neriiiee i0 take apprepriete iegai steps te remove the encroachments. Since the Government of Chhattisgarh‘ ano’ its authorities have taken a specific stand that there is no encroachment and since the petitioners have net iaid before the Ceuit any substantive legal material on the basis of which we could possibly form an epinien that in fact the 6m respondent has encroacheci the Government land whieh is adjacent to the land granted te the 6‘“ respendent tor estabiishing Coai Washery . (4') Having heard learned council ter the parties, we are satisfieti that this writ petition dees not invoive enforcing any puhiic law obligation in public interest in that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed. The State of Chhattisgarh is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,()6i3i- (Rupees Five Thousand oniy) to iearned amicasttom l x zJ. W tocia . l Sd/— l Sd/- Chief Justice V.K.Shrivastava Judge 7,