W.P.No.978/11 1 28/11/2011 Shri Shivendra Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Khedkar, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1, 3 & 5/State. Shri Brijesh Sharma, Advocate for the respondents No.2 & 4. Shri Udit Saxena, Advocate for the respondent No.6. Heard. The petitioner has filed this Public Interest Litigation petition for the following reliefs :- “(11) RELIEF SOUGHT: In view of the facts mentioned above the petitioner prays that this petition be allowed and a writ in the nature of mandamus or any direction may kindly be issued and following relief may be granted to the petitioner :- (i) That, the respondents be directed not to construct the said three roads in the forest area and not to remove/ cut the aforesaid trees situated in the project line. (ii) That, the permission granted by the D.F. O. for construction the aforesaid three roads vide Annexure P/1 Series be quashed with a further direction to delete the aforesaid three roads from the package No. MP-3710 Distt. Sheopur of the respondent no. 6. (iii) That, the other relief doing justice including cost be awarded.” A contract was awarded to M/s Rajeev Kumar Contractor Pvt. Ltd. under Package No.MP-3710 for upgradation of 24 rural roads of Kharal Block under Padhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna. An agreement was executed to this effect and the period of completion W.P.No.978/11 2 of work was 12 months. The petitioner filed this Public Interest Litigation in regard to three roads, namely, Buthera to Jharerr- 9.5 kms; Jharerr to Patalgarh- 10 kms. and Kenal-Ajnoi to Dable- 14.5 kms. respectively. As per the petitioner, the aforesaid roads have constructed in a forest area and for the aforesaid purpose, near about 1000 trees have been cut, hence, the construction of road is illegal. As per the reply filed by the respondents No. 2 & 4, the contract was awarded under Package No.MP-3710 for upgradation of 24 roads and no new road in the area has been constructed, however, the existing roads, those were existed prior to 25-10-1980, is being upgraded by converting the roads into tarcoal roads. It is further submitted that the contractor had extracted mineral from forest area, hence, a fine of Rs.47,96,172.30 was imposed against the petitioner and the work was suspended. It is further submitted that the contractor has failed to deposit the amount, hence, on the behest of the contractor, this PIL has been filed. The petitioner alleged in the writ petition that construction of roads is in a forest area, however, as per the reply filed by the respondents No.2 & 4, there is no construction of any new road in the forest W.P.No.978/11 3 area, only the existing roads have been upgraded by converting into tarcoal road, hence, the apprehension of the petitioner is ill-founded. A proper contract was awarded for the purpose of construction of the road. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 402, has considered the concept of public interest litigation and also considered various earlier judgments and judgment of Apex Courts of other countries in this subject and held as under :- “25. Public interest litigation has been defined in Black’s Law Dictionary (6th Edn.) as under: “Public interest.—Something in which the public, the community at large, has some pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything so narrow as mere curiosity, or as the interests of the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by citizens generally in affairs of local, State or national Government.” 26. Advanced Law Lexicon has defined “public interest litigation” as under: “… the expression ‘PIL’ means a legal action initiated in a court of law for the enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or a class of the community has pecuniary W.P.No.978/11 4 interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.” 27. The Council for Public Interest Law set up by the Ford Foundation in USA defined “public interest litigation” in its Report of Public Interest Law, USA, 1976 as follows: “10. … Public interest law is the name that has recently been given to efforts providing legal representation to previously unrepresented groups and interests. Such efforts have been undertaken in the recognition that ordinary marketplace for legal services fails to provide such services to significant segments of the population and to significant interests. Such groups and interests include the proper environmentalists, consumers, racial and ethnic minorities and others.” (Holicow Pictures (P) Ltd. v. Prem Chandra Mishra (2007) 14 SCC 281 : AIR 2008 SC 913, SCC p.288, para 10 : AIR p.918, para 19.) (emphasis supplied) 28. This Court in People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982) 3 SCC 235 : 1982 SCC (L&S) 275, defined “public interest litigation” and observed that (SCC p.242, para 2) the public interest litigation is a cooperative or collaborative effort by the petitioner, the State or public authority and the judiciary to secure observance of constitutional or basic human rights, benefits and privileges upon the poor, downtrodden and vulnerable sections of the society.” After considering its earlier judgments and also judgments of the Apex Courts of other countries, W.P.No.978/11 5 Hon'ble the Supreme Court has issued the following guide-lines in regard to Public Interest Litigation :- “(1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations. (2) Instead of every individual Judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this Court immediately thereafter. (3) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL. (4) The Courts should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entering a PIL (5) The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition. (6) The Courts should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions. (7) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that W.P.No.978/11 6 there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation. (8) The Courts should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations.” As per the principle of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the aforesaid case is influx of the present case. In our opinion, no public interest is involved in the present case because the respondents No.2 & 4 and the State Government have categorically stated in their return that no road has been constructed in the forest area and only a contract of upgradation of already existing roads was awarded. In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this public interest litigation petition filed by the petitioner. It is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (S.K.Gangele) (G.D.Saxena) Judge Judge Pkm