^^^^^''^'.•-^^^.\ % HIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREeHHATriSGARH:BILASPUR fDIVISIONBENCH) CORAM : \ Hon'ble Shri S.R. Nayak, CJ Hon'bleShriD.R.Deshinukh.J. WRITPETITIONNo. 940 OF 2006 Petitioner RESPONDENTS 2. 3. 4. 5. Gurnam Saluja.Aged about 43 years, soh of Shri Jggdish Saluja.Residentof Darripara, Near State Bank kawardha, 'Tahsil aiM^ D'istrict toiairdhan (Kawardha) ©liteattisgarh Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through : The Secretary Department of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Secretary, Department of Urbah Administration, D.K^. Bhsman, Raipur TheJ3tVIunicipalCouncil,Kawardha Throi.igj'i.;; The Ghief Muiji<ap»al^0<5eer, lyiunicipal Council, Kawardha, Oistrict KabiKihaWi ffS.G.y The Collector, District Kawardha (Kabiretham)(C.G.) The Tahsildar, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) Ramesh Kumar Ghandrawanshi; Son of Shri Late Chaindrawanshi, resyent of Sarafe Line, Rajendra Sliotlira Complsx, l^wardha, Distftet Kabirdham :(C.G.)..,'.,,.,/ : • : .. ...•, Present: Mr.P.P.SabUitearnedcounselfQrthepetitioner. Mr. PrashantMishra, learnedAddl. A.G.withMr.SanjayS. Agrawal, learned G.A.fortheState. ORALORDER >IR (Passedon 28°'oTFebruary,2006) ^^;i®'£<i';Bs?> yi.^WSS; Fl-K"'^''-.,!;; 79 -2-- IB The-fbllowing Order oftheGourtwaspassedby S.R.Nayak,GJ: This writ petition is fitedas a Public Interest LitigaMon complaining that^e land TOmprised in Patwairi Halte No.34/1, Nazool Sheet No.17, Plot No.498 of Khasra No.576 is a Government land and the 6' resportdent ttas ;sncroaGhed upon the ^aid tand and he is puffing up construction after obtaining permission tom the Munteipal Council, Kawardha. So alleging, the petitioner has sought Interventlon of the Court;;. ' :~ :' • / : : " !, • : , : - : (2) The petitioner has produced a representation made by one Juthel singh, marked as Annexure-P/4 at page 32 of matenal papers dated 20.12^005, submittedtotheChiefMunicipalOfficer.Munte Couhcil, Kawardha. We haye perused that representation. It shows that thesaid Juthel Singh had applied forgrantof subject land on permanent tease to the District Collsctor, but, the District Cotlector did not pass any order on the sajd appllcation. On hls own showing, the said JuthelSlngh js vtelly interested in the subject land. Annexure-P/4 is the repFesentatioli made by said Juthel Singh. It is npt even jpint representation of the petitioner and the said Juthel Singh. At the bottom of the said representation, according te the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had also puthissignature.lntheGircumstance.wethinkthatthepresent writ petitton could not be considered as a genuine Public Interest Litigation, if not for any reason, but, for the reason that the petitloner has joined hands wlth the said Juthel Singh who is vitally Interestecf :in the subject land. It might be that the petitioner is set-up by said Juthet SingH to fight Ijtigation on his behalf in the garb of Public Interest Litigation. is quiteoften sajd and reiteratedthat the perspn Who approaches thjs^E^|i|i 80 under Article 226 ofthe Constitution as pns bono public character should come with clean hands and charged with nothing but well-being of the soeiety and emotion to subserye the public interests without seeking any retlef to hlmself. In that viewofthe matter, we are not inclined to entenaln this writpetition and itisaccordinglydismissed. Nocosts. p Sd/- Chief Justice Sd;- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge