445 wy HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR DB: HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHAR, 85 HON’BLE SHRI PRASHANK KUMAR MISHRA, JJ PETITIONERS 1 RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Harish Kedia, s/o late Shri Kaluram Kedia, aged about 6O years, President, Chhattisgarh Laghu Avam Sahayak Udyog Sang, R/o Kranti Nagar, near Mandir, Bilaspur. Ku. Deepali Dubey, aged about 14 years, D/o Shri Prabhat Kumar Dubey, occupation — Student, R/o ‘Vinoba Nagar, D-16, L—3, ‘Bilaspur (CG), Minor, through Father and Natural guardian Shri Prabhat Kumar Dubey, syo Shri Bharilal Ji Dubey, EX—Vice Chairman of B.D.A., Bilaspur (0G). Vs. Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India, S.P. Bhawan, New Delhi. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Civil Aviation, Government of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (co). . Air Port Authority of India, Through its Chairperson, Rajeev Gandhi Bhawan, Safdargunj, Airport, New Delhi-3. Director General of Civil Aviation, c/o Building of Airport Authority of India, Rajeev Gandhi Bhawan, Safdargunj, New Delhi—3. Air Port Authority of India, Having its Branch Office at Raipur Airport, Mana, Raipur (C.G) .V w. P (PIL) No. 7147 of 2007 / 2 M3 W.P. (PIL) N0. 7147/2007 Appearance: Mr. Prashant Jayaswal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ajay Mishra, counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Anand Verma, counsel for respondent no. 1. Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Addl. Advocate General for the State/ respondent no.2. ORAL ORDER (10.02.2010) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J, Heard. Petitioner no.1 is President of Chhattisgarh Laghu Avam Sahayak Udyog Sangh, and is resident 0f Bilaspur. Petitioner no.2 is a minor girl, aged about 14 years. She is also resident of Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. They have filed this petition projecting it to be a Public Interest Litigation seeking following relief(s) : 7. 7.1 The petitioners above named most respectfully pray to this Hon’ble Court to call for the entire records of the case. The petitioners above named most respectfully pray to the Hon’ble Court to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents 3, 4 and 5 to act in accordance with the public duty imposed under Section 12(2) of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994. 7.3 The petitioners most humbly and respectfully pray to the Hon’ble Court to issue appropriate directions to the respondents to start regular air services from and to Bilaspur Airport situated at Chakarbhata to various other places. i E RELIEFM sOUGHT : 3 W.P. (PIL) No. 7147/2007 7.4 The petitioners most humbly and respectfully pray to the Hon’ble Court to direct respondents 3, 4 and 5 as also the respondents 1 and 2 to disdcharge discretionary functions provided under Section 12(3)(b), (c), (m), (o) and (p) of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994. Lew 7.5 Any other relief, which may suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Airport Authority of India has neglected to start Air Traffic Services from Bilaspur Airport situated in Chakarbhata, Bilaspur. He submits that the State of Chhattisgarh was formed in the year 2000 and since then, only one Air Port is serving at Raipur which is catering the air traveling needs of the entire State of Chhattisgarh. Therefore, necessary directions may be issued to the respondents in public interest to start regular air services from and to Chakarbhata Airport, Bilaspur. We note that out of two petitioners, petitioner no.2 is a minor girl aged about 14 years. How she would be interested in filing public interest litigation for the aforesaid relief(s) could not be explained by the counsel for the petitioner. To satisfy about the credentials of the petitioner/petitioners and also their real necessity for filing Public Interest Litigation are the factors to be considered at the time of entertaining such petitions. The petition must show the larger public interest and it should not be in the personal interest of any person or any particular individual, is the basic feature of the public interest litigation in our country. The second would be the availability of the 4 W.P. (PIL) N0. 7147/2007 vr essential facts for the reliefs which are claimed in the public interest litigation. If the facts in relation to cause of action leading to claiming of a particular relief shown to be a public interest are lacking on their sufficiency, it would also be a reason for not entertaining such petition and the petitions of such category are to be dismissed at the threshold. We find that without bringing the essential facts in the pleading of the writ petition the petitioners have claimed the aforesaid relief(s) by filing this public interest litigation. On due consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and the pleadings and documents filed along-with the writ petition, we do not deem it appropriate to entertain this public interest litigation. The writ petition filed as public interest litigation is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. The security amount of ' Rs.5000/- be refunded to the petitioners. " Sd//- Sdl- Judge Sunil Kumar Sinha Prashant Kumar Mishra Rao