^aV^ ^-.a\6' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLESHRIRAJEEVGUPTA,CJ.& HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. PETmONER W.P.No. 2134 of 2006 Jilani Khan, Aged about 48 years, S/o Late Murtaza Khan, Chairman, Sabji Phal Phool Utpadak Evam Vipnan Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit (Vegetables, Fruits and Flower Grovers and Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd.) Raipur (C.G.) R/o Mobin Para, Raipur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary Department of Co-operation, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Vipnan Sangh Maryadit (State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd.) Through the Managing Director/Officer-in-Charge, 880, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) Municipal Corporation Through the Municipal Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) Registrar, Cooperative Societies, The State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) Petition Under Article 226 ofthe ConstitutioiLof Indja Present: Shri Jitendra Pali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Kishore Bhaduri, learned Addi. Advocate General for the State/respondents No.1 & 4. Dr. N.K. Shukla, Sr. Advocate with Ku. Ritu Mishra, counsel for respondent No.2. None Tor respondent No.3. KSsf ORDER (22nd April, 2008) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Kishore Bhaduri, learned Addl. Advocate General, referring to para 2 of the return fited on behalf of respondent No.2-Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Vipnan Sangh Maryadtt, Raipur, has raised a preliminaryobjectlon about the maintainability of the writ petition as 'Public Interest Litigation'. 2) Petitioner - Jilani Khan has filed this writ petition for the following reliefs: "7- i. To kindly call for the records of the case from the respondents. ii. To kindly issue a writ of certiorari by quashing the impugned order vlde Annexure P-17 dated 22/3/2006 and vide Annexure P-18 dated 23/3/2006. iii. To kindly issue a writ of mandamus against the respondents not to atienate any properties of the Markfed in any manner unless the elected Board of Directors/Managing Committee takes charge of its management (i.e. of Markfed). iv. To kindly issue suitable directlons including passing of strictures against the respondents and others as have been commanded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Identical situations. v. To klndty make any other orders that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner." 3) The petitioner thus, in substance is seeking quashing of the impugned orders dated 22/3/2006 and 23/3/2006 passed by respondent No.2 whereby respondent No.2 has decided to concede the land in question in favour of the State Government/ Municipal Corporation forthe purposes ofwidening ofthe road. 4) The counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.2 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Vipnan Sangh Maryadit, Raipur, contains following averments in paras 1 & 2 ofits return: "1. That, the land which is subject matter of the present petition is purchased by answering respondent from the Municipat Corporation, Raipur itself on payment of 2,14,400/- which was the market price on the date when the sale deed was executed on 5-12-1997 and since then, the answering respondent is in peaceful possession of the sald land. The land is useful for the answering respondent and the answering respondent do not want to give this land to Municipal Corporation and this fact has already been made known to the Municipal Corporation, Raipur by various letters issued by the Managing Director of the answering respondent. Coples of those letters are already enclosed by the petitioner along with the petition. 2. In view of the above the answerlng respondent prays that the petition may be allowed." 5) From the above quoted averments in the return filed on behatf of respondent No.2 it is apparent that respondent No.2 Is supporting the writ petition in toto. 6) in this view of the matter, we are clearly of the view that respondent No.2 could have filed a writ petition in its own capacity against the proposed acquisition/transfer of the land in question to the State Government/Municipal Corporation. 7) As in the writ petition filed by the petitioner styled as PIL there is no averment at all as to why respondent No.2 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Vipnan Sangh Maryadit, Raipur, cannot file the writ petition in its own capacity, we decline to entertain the writ petition filed by the petitioner styled as Public Interest Litigation. 8) The writ petition, therefore, is liable to be dlsmissed and is hereby dismissed. 9) Consequently, the interim order dated 25-4-2006 stands vacated automatlcatly. 10) Security amount of Rs.2,000/- depc^ited by the petitioner be refunded to the petitioner. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd'- _. SunilKumarSinha judge padma