SSNfS" F RFN^" ^?*-TO ^ L»?L \^ £.,-i^ le':^!j IN HI6H COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P,_(c^ N0,___ ^£0£' OF 2009 PETITIONERS .^/ .i>.-iS'.-fK--' .^^%'^;f ^y/ <<^/y ~^y RESPON&ENTS 1. Smt. Sandhya Mishra, wife of Shri Vidhan Mishra, aged 47 years, resident of Near Chhattisgarh College, Civil Lines, Raipur 2. Smt. Rajni Bhandari, wife of Shri Kamal Bhandari, aged 49 years, resident of Devkripa', Civil Lines, Raipur. Vs Mantralaya, & Country bepartment, 1. Stote of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Town & Country Planning bepartment, [3.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C6) 2. The Town Planning through the Directorate, Raipur. 3. The Collector, Raipur. 4. The Municipal Corporation, Raipur through its Commissioner. 5. Holy Hearts Educational Academic Private Ltd., through its Director Shr'i ^ 2 S.P. Singh, Fingeshwar House, Chhotapara, Raipur. PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INblA 1. PARTICU LAfi-S-0 l^.&ETrrrOMER^ /^FK jUGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 4200 OF 2009 E)E:::TiriONEF^ RESPONDENTS Srnt. Sandhya Mishra Versus Sfate of Chhattisgarh & Others F'ost fclr pronouncement of order on ../.°. day ofAugust, 2010. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge ^ X.-' qBuig jnpeL|eg ejpu9Lfe|/\| UL|g euo 0} 'jndiey 'jo}oa||03 leuoiiippv aL|) Aq psnssi SBM jausi suo 'jsyesjeLii 'sseei aL]} jo g'ON uaffipuoo p qoeejq ssneo MOL|S o^ 8002/ZI./OE uo g-ON luepuodssj 94} 0} 'jndjey 'joioa[|oo eq} Aq psnssiSGM SODOU esneo Moqs B 'oisjsifl }uensjnd {.QQZ/ZWZ pe»epJapjo Aq |ooi|og joj. Buipiinq B pnJl.syai o) uoissiuijed 10 )uej6 GLI) Guiuoiissnb 'soiiod p }uspu9)uuadns 9i.|) y iu9u.i)jed9a Buiuueid |ejny "g ueqjn 'jofoejiQ ai^ 'jop9]|oo SL|]. 0} saurf IIAIQ p sjuspisaj sq^ Aq apeiu sem (e-cj gjnxsuuv) S)U!B|CIU.IOO 'j9UO!}i].9d aq) 0} Buipjooov 'U'bs 008'68 Buunseeujpe GI-'ON >|oo|g 'I./S'ON )o|d uo uo!}n)!isui leuoiteonpa ue uedo o) uoissiiujsd ou si ajSLj) se 'ue|d tueLudo|3A8a jndiey sq^ o^ AJBJ)UOO BSJB saui^ IIAIQ 9q} ui |OOL|OS e psusdo seq 'LlBuig'd-s Ui|S Aq p86eueu.i '|OOL|OQ /S'ON i.uspuodssj 941 IBL|) si jeuoiin.sd 84t p souBASuB uieuj si)i 2 '.i9uo!)!tad a4t }o s}Uie|dtuoo eqi epiosp oi jaq)Jn.( pue 9'ON )U9puodssj / [OOL|OS sq) UMOP esop o) ssifuoLiine luspuodssj aq) Guiiosjip snLuepueiii ^o IUM e ssises 'jndiey jo A)|O sq} ;o esje ssui-] IIAIQ jo tuspisej e sq 01 Buiu-ireio 'jsuoiiiiQd eqj^ / I,. (OIOZ ' ^sngnv jo Krp^oy • uo psMAjpa) y 3 a a o •S'ON luapuodsaj eu^ jo^ ^(isooApv 'tndfey 'g'S U48 17'OM luapuodssj 91.1} joj. ^tBooApv 'ieMejBy Te>|ued ULig •s)Btg si)} jo^ jsAMB-i jaued 'Aoy'N'N UL|S '.lauoiijtsd 9LJ) JO^ SSIBOOAPV 'lB>|BS-n/\| |jq9 qyM Bujjeqs'd'g UMS -: tussejd T 'ujoqiuBv 'X 4S!tB9 uqg SIQ.UOH : Moueg sjBu.is (eipu| 10 uoi)n)!isuoo sqtp 9SZ a|3|^v-isp"n uoi}!)ad )UM) sjaqio 'S q-ieBsiueqqo p sieig SJJiSiaROJS'Eiy' snsje/\ BjqsiiAIBAqpueg'iLug ylNCHTiT!)? 600Z JO OOZF'''ONToTNOLLLL3d~liaM andgviia: HyvosLLlvHHd =10 lanoo HOIH f^~^. fe. 1 sCS^ on 4/4/2009 (ApnBxure P-4) informing Him that the ScHool o<ri be csonstruoted in the residential area. Shri Agrawal, learned oounBei ,appearing for the re8poncjentN.o'.4 and Shrl Rajput, learhed obuns'el appearihg for the respondgnt No.S submlt that in thls respedt a cclmplaint is pending before the otflce of Lok A^og. The Town plarjher, MUhlcipal Corporatlon, halipur has submltted his rsspohse to thte offl®eof the Lok Ayog as is evident from Annexure R-4/1. On perusal of the papers, It appears that all the disputed facts are Ipvolved. The Collector has also not passed any order pursuant to show cause notice.dated 30/12/2008 till date. The petitioner is also claimlng relief not being affected directly, but on behalf of the resjdents of Civll Lines, Ralpur. Several complaints have been filed by sever^l persons but not by the petitioner before the authorities, as no document to this effect ha^ been filed alongwith the petition. It is a general rule that the rightwhich is a foundation of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is personal and individual right. The Bupreme Court in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kuinar, 1-lsjl BashirAhmed & Others observed as under: This Court has laid down in a number of decislons that in order to have the locus standi to invoke the extraordjnary jurlscj]ction under Article 226, an appllcant should ordlharily be one who has a personal or individual right in the subject-matter of the application, though in the c&se otsome of the wrlts like habeas corpus or quo warranto this rule is relaxed or modified. In other words, as a general rule, infringement of some legal right or prejudice to some legal interest inhering in the petitioner is necessary to give him a locusstandi in the matter. fsee State of Onssa \f. Madan Gopal Rungta; Calcutta Gas Co. v. State of W.B. : Ram Umeshwari Suthoo v. Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa ; Qadde Venkateswara Rao v. Govemment of A.P. ; State of Orissa v. Rajasaheb Chandanmall : Dr. Satyanarayana Sinha v. M/s. S. Lal & Co.). |076f 1 S.C.C.li71 tW^- ]n the case on hand, the petltloner has not pleaded specifically anyMvhtere as to how her rjght Is dlreotly affected. A vague allegation has been made that it creaites noise-pollution. 6. Be that as it may, it appears that several complaints filed by several other persons is pending consideration betore the Coilector, who have issued a show cause notlce dated 30/12/2008. Since no other dooyment has been filed, it'maybe presumed that final orderhaa not been passed. The petitioner, if 80 advised, may join the other persons in filing the corriplalnt to the Collector, who is In selsln of the matter. If the order has been passed by the Collector in the identical complaint filed by other persons, no relief can be granted to the petitioner as no cause of action has been disclosed in this petition. It is also brought to the noticeof this Court that a compliant in respect of the instant dispute is pending oonsideration before the office of Lok Ayog. Thus, it is not necessary to go into the detalls of the facts as it ihvolves compllcated disputed facts, which cannot be resolved by thls Court on the basis of documents flled by the petitioner. Hence, the petjtioner is not entitled to any relief at this stage, as the petitioner has not dlsclosed any enforceable right accrued in his favour. 7. In view of the foregoing, the petition stands disposed of. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge