CWP NO. 14932 OF 2007. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 14932 of 2008. Date of Decision: 4th of October, 2008. Gurmail Singh & Anr. Petitioners through Mr. Arun Nehra, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through None CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. In this Civil Writ Petition, purported to have been filed in Public Interest, the petitioners seek quashing of the re-allotment letter dated 13th December, 2001 [Annexure P-2] whereby a piece of land measuring 200 acres situated in Sector 76, Mohali, has been re- allotted by the Punjab Urban Development Authority in favour of Radha Soami Satsang – respondent No. 4. [2]. The facts may be noticed briefly. [3]. The Government of Punjab issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in November, 1993 proposing to acquire 629.55 acres of land in village Sohana for development/setting up of Industrial Area, Mohali. The proposed acquisition included a big chunk of land owned by respondent No.4. CWP NO. 14932 OF 2007. ::-2-:: Thereafter, a notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued and upon acquisition, the land was handed-over to the Punjab State Industries and Export Corporation for developing into industrial plots. Another chunk of land measuring more than 230 acres owned by the respondent Dera, appears to have been again acquired by the Government of Punjab in the year 2001. [4]. It further appears that the respondent Dera moved a representation to get its land exempted from acquisition and to allow it to use the same for its religious activities. The Government did not agree to exempt the land from acquisition as the same had already been acquired and vested in Punjab Urban Development Authority [for short 'PUDA'], however, it was decided to re-allot land measuring 200 acres in favour of the Dera in Sector 76, SAS Nagar, Mohali on certain terms and conditions contained in Memo dated 8th October, 2001, marked as Annexure P-1, including the conditions that “[i] the allotment price in respect of 200 acres shall be exactly equal to total land acquisition amount, including the principal, solatium and the upto date interest, including assessment of amount of structures, trees [both fruit bearing and non-fruit bearing] as well as tubewell etc.; [ii] the Satsang shall, however, be paid compensation for their land in excess of 200 acres in accordance with the Awards in respect of the villages under acquisition; [iii] the Satsang shall also give a written and unequiwed undertaking that they shall not seek any enhancement in respect of this land through the procedure prescribed before the courts and [iv] the proportionate External Development charges payable exclusively by the Satsang to PUDA CWP NO. 14932 OF 2007. ::-3-:: for the 200 allotted acres shall be Rs.2 lacs per acre, i.e., Rs.4 crore in gross and this may be deducted from the land acquisition amount payable as the balance land acquisition compensation. This rate of External Development Charges is directly linked to the conditions laid down to Paragraph 5 and 6 of this letter”. [5]. There is, however, no dispute that while accepting the afore-stated terms and conditions, the respondent Dera has relinquished its claim over land measuring about 34 acres which is at a prime location and is proposed to be utilised for some public purposes. [6]. Relying upon a News Item which appeared in a daily Newspaper dated 7th July, 2007 and alleging that the land has been re-allotted to the Dera for extraneous reasons that the petitioners have rushed to this Court without even verifying the contents of the news item. [7]. No explanation whatsoever has come forward on behalf of the petitioners in impugning the decision taken by the State Government way back in the year 2001, at this belated stage. In our considered view, the un-explained delay and laches of six years in filing of this writ petition are too fatal to be over-looked and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this count alone. [8]. We also find that the petitioners have been quite selective in furnishing their own particulars as according to them, they are “residents of Sohana [Mohali] and their lands are close to the land re- allotted to respondent No. 4 Dera”. The writ petition is conspicuously silent as to whether or not the lands of the petitioners have also been CWP NO. 14932 OF 2007. ::-4-:: acquired. If that is so, the only recourse available to the petitioners was to assail the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act in respect to their lands. The petitioners, however, if still continue to own the land and are aggrieved at the adverse impact likely to be there on the 'commercial potentiality' of their lands due to re- allotment of the land in favour of the Dera, then they can not be permitted to camouflage and dub this writ petition in 'Public Interest' when actually it is meant to serve their 'personal interest' only. [9] Re-emphasizing the parameters within which a `Public Interest Litigation' can be entertained, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balco Employees' Union (Regd.) Vs. Union of India and others, (2002) 2 Supreme Court Cases 333, held as follows:- “Whenever the Court has interfered and given directions while entertaining PIL it has mainly been where there has been an element of violation of Article 21 or of human rights or where the litigation has been initiated for the benefit of the poor and the underprivileged who are unable to come to court due to some disadvantage. In those cases also it is the legal rights which are secured by the courts. However, public interest litigation was not meant to be a weapon to challenge the financial or economic decisions which are taken by the Government in exercise of their administrative power. No doubt a person personally aggrieved by any such decision, which he regards as illegal, can impugn the same in a court of law, but a public interest litigation at the behest of a CWP NO. 14932 OF 2007. ::-5-:: stranger ought not to be entertained. Such a litigation cannot per se be on behalf of the poor and the downtrodden, unless the court is satisfied that there has been violation of Article 21 and the persons adversely affected are unable to approach the Court.” In Dr.B.Singh Vs. Union of India and others, (2004)3 Supreme Court Cases 363, the Apex Court reiterated that before entertaining a PIL, the Court should be satisfied that “(a)the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; and (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike a balance between two conflicting interest: (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the executive and the legislature. The court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busybodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of pro bono publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect.” In Printers (Mysore) Ltd. Vs. M.A.Rasheed and CWP NO. 14932 OF 2007. ::-6-:: others, (2004) 4 Supreme Court Cases 460, it was held that a PIL challenging allotment of a plot by Development Authority after 3 years of such allotment, ought not to have been entertained by the High Court. In T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad (98) Vs. Union of India and others, (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 28, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, having found that the so-called `public spirited person' was infact set up by others, dismissed the PIL with exemplary costs and re-stated that PIL cannot be entertained on behalf of a person whose bonafides and credentials are in doubt. These principles have been again underlined in Kansing Kalusing Thakore Vs. Rabari Maganbhai Vashrambhai, (2006) 12 SCC 360. In a recent case in Divine Retreat Centre Vs. State of Kerala, (2008) 3 SCC 542, it has been highlighted that: “the public interest litigant must disclose his identity so as to enable the court to decide that the informant is not a wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or concern. The author of the letter in this case is anonymous, there is no way to verify his bona fides and in fact no effort was made by the court to verify about the authenticity, truth or otherwise of the contents of the petition. Obviously, the High Court could not have verified the same since the petition received by it is an unsigned one.” [10] We are, therefore, of the considered view that since the petitioners have not been able to satisfy their pro-bono-publico, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with costs of Rs.5000/- which CWP NO. 14932 OF 2007. ::-7-:: the petitioners are directed to deposit with the Punjab and Haryana High Court Lawyers Welfare Fund within a period of two months. [11]. Ordered accordingly. ( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE October 04, 2008. ( T.S.THAKUR ) dinesh CHIEF JUSTICE