IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. CWPIL No. 19 of 2011 Date of Decision : August 19, 2011 Nirmal Sharma ` …Petitioner Versus: State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner: Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. A.G. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral). This petition was registered as a public interest writ petition on the basis of a letter addressed to this Court by one Pushpa Devi widow of late Sh. Rama Nand, complaining that the private respondents were indulging in illegal mining. On the first date itself, this Court issued a direction to the Government officials to visit the site and file a report as to the state of affairs. The Govt. officials were also directed to report whether any illegal mining was being carried out and if so, to what extent and also report what action has taken in respect of the illegal mining. 2. Inspection report was filed. According to this report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Solan, Sub Divisional 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 Magistrate, Solan, Naib Tehsildar, Solan and the Mining Officer, Solan, no illegal mining activity was being found to be carried out at the site by the respondents. It was also reported that a Civil Suit had been filed by Sunil Kumar son of Smt. Pushpa Devi and some other persons against private respondents Mohan Singh and Laxmi Dutt. In this suit, the aforesaid three defendants filed counter claims and alongwith the counter claims moved an application for grant of stay. Learned trial Court passed a stay order in favour of the defendants/counter claimants and Sunil Kumar and other villagers were restrained from interfering in the land in question or in obstructing in the mining work over the suit land. By a separate order of the same date, the Civil Judge had also restrained the defendants from interfering in the land of the village in village Manuh. 3. This fact had not been disclosed by Pushpa Devi in her petition though there is a very vague reference to some stay order passed by the Civil Court against the private respondents. As mentioned above, this was a petition registered on the basis of a letter addressed by Pushpa Devi. When this petition was pending, an application was filed by the applicant Nirmal Sharma stating that she is a permanent resident of village Manuh and, therefore, her rights are also being affected and she may be impleaded as a petitioner in the case. This application was allowed. 4. Reply has been filed by the private respondents and this reply shows that Pushpa Devi has been appearing as a witness in 3 the case filed by Nirmal Sharma or her son and that Nirmal Sharma, present applicant, in turn, has been associated Pushpa Devi in litigation filed by her and her family members. We are at this stage not going to the merits of the case because we are of the considered view that both Pushpa Devi as well as applicant Nirmal Sharma did not come to this Court with clean hands inasmuch as they did not clearly inform this Court about the civil litigation which was pending between them and the private respondents. 5. A person who comes to the Court seeking discretionary relief that too by way of public interest litigation must come to the Court with clean hands. This Court will not entertain petitions, which are not public interest litigations, but only private interest litigation or publicity interest litigation. The fact that this petition is not a public interest litigation is apparent because Pushpa Devi made no mention about the litigation filed by her son and similarly Nirmal Sharma had not made any mention of the litigation filed by Laxmi Dutt and others, wherein she and her son are parties. Therefore, without going to any other merits of the case, we reject the writ petition as not being a public interest litigation. In view of the report filed and non- disclosure of the previous litigation, costs of Rs.10,000/- are imposed upon Nirmal Sharma, which shall be paid by her to the H.P. State Legal Services Authority and must be deposited within a period of 8 weeks from today. 4 6. We reiterate that we are not again going to the merits of the rival contentions of the parties and both Pushpa Devi and Nirmal Sharma, are free to establish their rights, if any, in a Civil Court by filing a proper civil suit. However, no such civil suit shall be entertained on behalf of Nirmal Sharma unless she has paid the costs aforesaid. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. August 19, 2011. (rana)