CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14908 OF 2011 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 16, 2011 Munshi Ram .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Ms. Monisha Lamba, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner seeks writ of prohibition for prohibiting the respondents from undertaking any construction in the area mentioned in Khasra No.63 as Gairmumkin Johar, Village Chirwari. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order whereby his application filed with the respondents has been rejected. The order on the representation has been passed pursuant to the direction issued by Division Bench of this Court to dispose of the said representation filed by the petitioner when the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of Public Interest Litigation. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14908 OF 2011 :{ 2 }: 100 yards plots have been allotted to S.C/B.C/B.P.L families vide resolution passed by the Panchayat on 7.3.2011. The Panchayat had passed a unanimous resolution for allotment of these plots, which was considered appropriate in public interest. Still, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing a writ petition in public interest. It can now be seen that the petitioner in fact was espousing his personal interest under the garb of public interest. He has now chosen to file this writ petition, not by way of public interest but in his personal capacity. The earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner in public interest was disposed of with the direction to the Deputy Commissioner to decide the representation filed by the petitioner, which was still pending at that stage. The Deputy Commissioner has now rejected the representation and the public interest, which was earlier raised by the petitioner, has now become a private personal interest of the petitioner and he has filed the present writ petition in his personal capacity. The intention of the petitioner to espouse his personal interest is, thus, clear and apparent. He is somehow wanting interference in a laudable scheme launched by the State for the benefit of S.C/B.C/downtroddens. The petitioner apparently is making an attempt to mislead the Court and has no interest other than his personal interest to espouse. The petitioner would have no concern with the land, which the Panchayat has decided to use for the purpose of carving out plots for S.C/B.C/B.P.L families. The Deputy Commissioner has considered and rejected the representation filed by the petitioner after getting a spot inspection report and on the basis of revenue entries reflected in CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14908 OF 2011 :{ 3 }: the jamabandis for the years 1989-90, 1999-2000 and 2004-05, where the Panchayat is shown to have reserved this area for plots. There is, thus, no merit in the plea raised by the petitioner and he has made an attempt to over-reach the Court by providing misleading information. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs of `10,000/- to the deposited in the accounts of Legal Services Authority, Haryana. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition to file a Public Interest Litigation. In my view, this prayer is totally misconceived. The petitioner has espoused his personal interest by filing this petition to show that he would be personally put to prejudice. Now changing track would obviously mean that petitioner is interested to get over the order which is passed against him. Accordingly, the prayer for withdrawing the writ petition to file a Public Interest Litigation is declined. August 16, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE