I" ff r(!T "i-1iimi] • J.E-fHli: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISG&RH_fi.'r_BJU,A5PliE. r^Q. •lot-72001 Radhe shyam Agrawal, son of late Shri Baijnath AgrawaJ., aged absut 43 years, resident of schaol Para, Baikunthpur,distt. Korea,chhattisgarh. l ^'l'ff ^- we^ ^* State of Chhattisgarh,through Chlef secretary, D..K.Building Raipur.chhattisgarh. Special police Establishment loksyukta office,Raipur,C'Garh. Jila Yojna Samiti,Balkunthpur, district Korea,through its sece- retsry. / Collector.Baikunthpur. , Chhattisgarh. 4. Dhuprad Chauhan, Member, Dist- rict Planning Committee,West Jhagdakhand Colory,distt .Korea Baikunthpur.chhattisgarb. 5. Shri Om Prakash Gupta, Member, Distr-ict Planning Committee, President,Nagar Panchayat.Jhagra Khand,district Korea,Chhattisgarh. 6. smt.Prabha Patel,Member, Di-etrict P.Lann.ing eommittee,Corporator, ; Ward N3.4, Nagar Jila Parisad, +< -2- Manendragarh.district Korea,c'Garh. 7. Shri Ramanuj Agrawal, Meraber,District Planning Conuaittee, President Nagar Palika,Manendra Garh,distti.Korea, Chhattisgarh. 8. Snt.Tara Devi Pandey,Kember, District Planning Committee.Mahal Para,Baikunth- pur.distrj.et Korea,chhattisgarh. 9 ant.Sushiia sevi,Kember, District Planning eoinmittee,Post office janak- pur,Tehsil Bharate,Baikunthpur.C'Garh. Bharatpur.Chhattisgarh. Snt. Sushila Dev,Memoer,District Plann- ing Oommittee at Khadgawara. Bhagwandin, Meaber, District Planning COB)raittee,janakpur,Tehsil Bharatpur. 12. Eexecutive Engineer, Publie wrks Bepartment,Korea,Divisioa, Manendragarh. Chhattisgarh. 13. Btecutive Engineer,RuraI Eagineering service, Bi-vision Balkunt]-<pur,C'Gerh* PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. XI-HC-22 T5[ -^ww^, »fli<-i<i6, fayiuy W.P.No. 4' lOI 311^1'ESI 'fera'sn^i g^WHT?^ sn^i'reiiWHf^r ^F]f?FN ~W9 ^ ^SVS ifa^K i?3Tpgii3i^r DBs Hon'ble Mr» Justice W.A. & Hon'ble s-!r«. Justlce 1S.7.2001 Shishak, C.ij. J. E'akhlruddin. Petitioner by Shri Pra^hant. Mishra, J'l.dvocate. Respandeat-St.ate Dy Dr.^j N.K.Shukla, Dy. A..G. Heacd. . | By thls petition,,-eti'As&cS-public interest, the petitianer has prayed for t4e relief of setting aside the. decision of .granting va4ious contracts in the .neeting convened on 27.12c2(JIOO and 1.1.2001 petitioner further prays fo^ respondeuts to punish the p trsons involved In awarding the Gontracts. Ths pstition^r is a practising lawyer I.t--3.S-':.ni3fce<a iEEisasisjsaa'SE' that support of the petitipn is observations ;sade by a divi of High Gourt'of Madhya Pra^esh in W.P.No. 983/99 ( S.P.&nand ys. State of M.( was heard on 20.4.2001 and i|>n that day learned Deputy Advocate Gensral submitted. one of the grievance raised The a directlon to the the affidavlt filed in tot in confarmity withnthe fcion Bench at Xndore Bench ) . Ths --natter however fcbat one of the contractor had filed a .writ petition N<t>. 174/2001(M/s Krishan Xumar & Company Vs. The District ^lanning CoiTt-Tiittee & ottiers) in said petition was also flft^^fe^ 3n^9T'q^B( ^E^s)<^) S'TCTI^ feiis; sv^f ^W^flt?^ siit?( 6^<nw Iiita 'bl^ifltil-l W^ ^ fS^ T^RZR V slf^fP, sn^sr 'A'ith regard to constructjlon of a road. A division Bench of this Cour.taftejr considering the entire inaterial available on r^ was involving disputed 4'aestions of facts which cord found that ti-ie petition id. ngt invoKs i-he juri^diction envisaged under Artlcle 226 of the Constiitution of India. The A>pex Court j|n the case of' Mslik Brothers Vs. -Nar-erKar-a-'DaSta.lch an4 anQther..,. reported in 20&0(i-) tFliiJ 3-6-has- cons:4der.ed the scope of Pubiic laterest Litigatlon in ^reat fletail that " it is necessary to bear in rni4d that public interest litigation is usually entertained Vfy a. Court for the purpose of redressing public injur: r, enforcing public duty, pr'otecting soc±al-right^ and vindicating public interest The real purpose of ent^rtaining such application is the vindicatiori of the itule-of. law» effe~cting access fco justice to the econorjiically x^eaker class and inean-i.ngful realisation'^f the fundarnentalrights. One of the contraetor h4d filed a-petition in this Courtwhich was registe4ed as w.p.No. 174/2001 and this Court decl-ined to ^nter'tain the same. In the present case.-a perusal were consider&d and the dispute is about variou^ of the petitionshows that some paragraphs o£ Ahe .i]>etition are raising tAe grievance that in the s^id meeting eertain contracts contractors after depositing the earnest Bioney.etc. 40uld not get pontract. The contractors which have been GRPRJ—FS/311— i /2001 —^O.OOO. ;,^':^'%w^ :<O-HC-22 SII^T^I 1?i:lN.;8!§W ^•1 '^)I?C( ilt' 'i '.'^,. . l~..;' ( ' I :i i •'S^'«it<tcis!gi*(E|^Slj,,».>ig<")^t :*i|tiCTi^t»*ii<n"""" '"""""'""""" ""^F^ 199: 1""N^^" """""""-"""""" Thakur entere'd J.ntS' coitfcraets,, Tfa^ par-fcies. iriWQlved\ in the an persuiag' ,'t.tie cemei3ies, t-lf. weaker elasa. of'persons contractors , an<3. rival" ecin-l.ca.Gfs.ABe capaBle'enbugh ar6 hQt .ecotioEtti-eally :' PQBltc'Intere&t and Pi( giffer'en't^'wiiere'' t.:he;'Hiatter: jiM()h!vvd>\tA ^ ; ooRti&a'efcei? -or .party, as a.rf t' shaitld no pufcilic j.nterest. involved, requires tha-t ,'the Court tbe. public tnterest Ilt.iga-fc: effeet. the e.i.vi.li rights 'of well..• ^ :, .': '' '• .' :: :"' • Havl.ng examtne<3.tKe angles, xn |the^ opinJ-OH of fi.t.case fdE' sxereislng'ext^ yestedlunderAEt;4-cle~226'^.o£ in exercisfe. of • .pubLxc:. inter^ '\ -. .. .. . :^ ••: , '• .., . ; .'. ''.. ,., ihterest IitigsClon ^s seciirJ.ty/,^e.pos3.1s&d l:>e interysfc reif:gn4^d ^(^t^'f ^fffif^ '^'fe^'^f^R •^ aipm ai'fer 'lv'a.'te' Interes-t |ar&' quifce - 4an Be 'agji.t.ated'by a \ |he presenti'case, there'is • • Tb®rule iof pru<3ence be caut.i.ous i.in eHfeer'tainsng [on, as it may aaYersely respectl.ve 'parttes' 'as -t|Ke nltattei- from ' tltl:s Court It i.s'not.a ^' )-a. •or3inary Juri.StiicClaa |the Constitut.ion OE-, ladia» 1ittgatioH.,' Thls'; • pub 1j-c dJ.STOissBlGl.'.The^i • aocoitcti.ngly Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Fakhruddui Judge .,..J!; I'iK <^>