CWP No.2733/2009 17.8.2009:Present: Mr. Devinder Ghosh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ravinder Thakur, Central Government Counsel for respondent No.1. Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. A.G. and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. A.G. for respondents No. 2 to 5 and 8. Mr. Anil Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.6. Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate for respondent No.7. The petitioners by way of this public interest litigation have prayed for the following reliefs: i) That the respondent-State may kindly be directed to cancel the project the respondent company as recommended by the Deputy Commissioner, Kinnaur vide recommendation/report dated 31st July 2008 (Annexure P-) ii) That a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued to direct the respondent No.2,3 & 6 to stop the operation of the Stone Crusher of the respondent Company situated at village Wangtoo (Panvi), Tehsil Nichar, District Kinnaur. iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the compensation to the petitioners for the rights of the petitioners in Govt. & Forest Land of their village which has been given to the respondent No.9 company by the respondent State for the construction of above mentioned project. iv) That the respondent company may kindly be directed to grant the compensation to the petitioners for the damaged cause to the cultivated lands, house and orchards of the petitioners. v) That the respondent company may kindly be directed to grant compensation to the petitioners in accordance with the principle of “polluter’s pay.” vi) That a writ of certiorati may kindly be issued to quash the permission granted in favour of the Respondent Company No. 9 by the respondent No. 2,3&6 for installing the Stone Crusher at the site mentioned above. vii) That a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued to direct the respondent No. 2, 3 and 6 to stop the illegal mining operation of the respondent No. 9 immediately. viii) That a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued against the respondent Pollution Board to stop the operation of Mix Plant of the respondent company No. 9 and to take necessary action against the Company for polluting the environment of the area of the petitioners village. ix) That a Writ of mandamus may kindly be issued against the respondent No. 1 to direct to take the necessary action against the Respondent Company No. 9 for violating the condition of Environmental clearance Forest Clearance. The respondent No. 1 may kindly further be directed to stop all the construction activities of the project of the respondent Company No. 9 till the project of the company is inspected by some independent agency or any other agency which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper. x) That a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued against the respondent No. 4 and 5 to take the necessary action against the respondent company No. 9 in accordance with law, for violating the provision of Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act 1969. xi) That the respondent No. 2 to 4 may kindly be directed to ensure that area, where excessive mining has been done by the respondent company be reclaimed at the cost of respondent company for saving environment as well as the land of the petitioners damaged by them. xii) That the respondent No. 7 may kindly be directed to disconnect the electricity connection of the Stone Crusher Unit and Mix Plant of the respondent No. 9 Company. xiii) Any other relief which Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. The Memorandum of Understanding for execution of the project was signed between the Government of Himachal Pradesh and respondent No. 9 on 28.8.1993. The Implementation Agreement was signed between the Government of Himachal Pradesh and respondent No. 9 on 18.11.1999 followed by tripartite agreement between the Government of Himachal Pradesh, respondent No. 9 and M/s. J.P. Karchham Hydro Corporation Limited on 30.12.2002. The Company had completed river diversion. The project is scheduled for commissioning in 2001- 2002. The present petition has been filed in the year, 2009. It is barred by delay and laches. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in D.D.A. versus Rajendra Singh and Others, JT 2009(10) SC 137 have held that the delay rules apply to PILs also and if there is no proper explanation for the delay, PILs are liable to be summarily dismissed on account of delay. Their Lordships have held as under: “26) Delay/Laches: Now, let us consider whether the writ petitions filed in the High Court in the year 2007 is justifiable and ought to have been dismissed on the ground of delay/laches. Though an objection was raised by all the official respondents before the High Court about the inordinate delay in filing the writ petitions by the petitioners, the said aspect was not either adverted to or considered by the Division Bench. We have already referred to the fact that the site in question was changed to "public and semi-public" way back on 21.9.1999. Before re-classifying the site, the DDA and the concerned authorities issued public notice calling for objections/suggestions. The particulars furnished by the official bodies clearly show that after getting the suggestions from the public change of land use for the site falling in zone `O' was changed on 21.9.1999 from "agricultural and water body" to "public and semi- public" purpose. Apart from this, the decision of hosting the Commonwealth Games at Commonwealth Games Village site was taken in 2003. The Department also issued a Global Tender process for Public Private Partnership ("PPP") participation in the residential portion of the Commonwealth Games project which was floated in December 2006 and was completed in June 2007. Apart from these materials, it was also highlighted before the High Court as well as before this Court to the effect that Environmental Clearance was granted on 14.12.2006 permitting permanent structures on the site after taking into consideration that the MoEF had stated "since environmental significance and public open space amenity of the river flood plain should be recognized, it was urged that the concerned authorities (DDA) that an extension of similar development in the area between Yamuna and its flood protection bunds must not be proposed without due environmental planning and prior environmental clearance." It was highlighted that in the light of the suggestions of Ministry of Environment and Forests, studies were carried out and after completion of such studies permanent structures were permitted to be constructed on the site in April 2007. Unfortunately, the High Court has lost sight with regard to these material aspects. In Narmada Bachao Andolan vs. Union of India, (2000) 10 SCC 664 para 229, this Court has held that the PIL should be thrown out at the threshold if it is challenged after the commencement of execution of the project. It was also held that no relief should be given to persons who approach the Court without reasonable explanation under Articles 226 and 32 after inordinate delay. We reiterate that the delay rules apply to PILs also and if there is no proper explanation for the delay, PILs are liable to be summarily dismissed on account of delay. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that both the petitioners though claiming that they are very much conversant with environment and ecology, approached the High Court only in the middle of 2007, hence on the ground of delay and laches, the writ petitions were liable to be dismissed. In the present case, there is a delay of about 7 years in filing this petition. Admittedly, the petitioners have also not made any representation to the respondents before approaching this Court for the redressal of their grievance. It is necessary for litigant to approach the statutory authorities for the redressal of his grievance before approaching the Court. It is only when his grievance is not redressed by the authorities; the litigant should approach the Court. However, we are of the considered view that the interest of just will suffice if the petitioners are permitted even at this stage to make representations to respondents No.2 and 6.” In the present case there is a delay of about seven years in filing this petition. Admittedly, the petitioners have also not made any representation to the respondents before approaching this Court for the redressal of their grievance. It is necessary for the litigant to approach the statutory authorities for the redressal of his grievance before approaching the Court. It is only when his grievance is not redressed by the authorities, the litigant should approach the Court. However, we are of the considered view that the interest of justice will suffice if the petitioners are permitted even at this stage to make representations to respondents No.2 and 6. Accordingly, the petitioners are permitted to make representations to respondents No. 2 and 6 within a period of four weeks from today. Respondents No.2 and 6 shall decide the representations by a speaking order within a period of 6 weeks thereafter. With these observations, the Civil Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. (R.B. Misra), Acting Chief Justice. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge. August 17, 2009. *awasthi*