IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 19819 of 2011 Date of Decision: October 20, 2011 Shanti Lal and others …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON’BLE HON’BLE HON’BLE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTI HON’BLE MR. JUSTI HON’BLE MR. JUSTI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CE CE CE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: Mr. Gunjan Rishi, Advocate, for the petitioners. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, ACJ M.M. KUMAR, ACJ M.M. KUMAR, ACJ M.M. KUMAR, ACJ 1. The instant petition is an example of Private Interest Litigation. The only allegation made is that son of the Sarpanch has been treated in the category of Scheduled Caste and has been allotted a 100 Square Yards plot in the village carved out of the Shamlat Deh land, as per the policy of the State Government, dated 1.2.2008 (P-1). The petitioners appear to be self-styled advocates of the peoples’ cause. However, there is nothing on the record to substantiate their antecedents in order to claim that they could initiate Public Interest Litigation. It is sheer misuse of the process of law. If anyone is affected adversely individually then the course is open to file a petition without invoking the support of Public Interest Litigation. Dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) Acting Chief Justice Acting Chief Justice Acting Chief Justice Acting Chief Justice (RAJIV NARAI RAJIV NARAI RAJIV NARAI RAJIV NARAIN RAINA N RAINA N RAINA N RAINA) October October October October 20 20 20 20, 201 , 201 , 201 , 2011 Judge Judge Judge Judge PKapoor