Alok Nigam vs Union of India and Others

S.R. Nayak, C.J.

I had the opportunity to read the draft judgment prepared by Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Having read the draft judgment prepared by Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J and reflecting upon the conclusion reached by him deeply and repeatedly, I am not in a position to fall in line with the view taken by him.

Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J has referred to the facts of the case in the judgment prepared by him and therefore, there is no need for me to refer to all those facts in detail again in this order.

In this batch of writ petitions, the following points arise for decisionmaking:

(i) Whether in the light of the order of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India and others, dated 10th April, 2006, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed in limine without going into the merits of the cases ? (ii) Whether the lease of the subject land by the Govt, of Chhattisgarh in favour of M/s. Maruti Clean Coal & Power Limited (for short M/s. Maruti'') is invalid because the subject land is a forest land and prior permission of the Central Government was not obtained in terms of section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, before the subject land was leased in favour of M/s Maruti?

(iii) Whether the subject land is owned by the Central Government/SECL or it is the land owned by the Government of Chhattisgarh?

(iv) Whether the lease granted in favour of M/s. Maruti Clean Coal & Power Limited is vitiate d on account of procedural impropriety?

Points No.2 and 3 do not survive for our consideration and we need not, rather cannot, go into those points in view of the order of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India and others, dated 10th April, 2006 (Supra). The Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that the subject land is not a forest land. Further, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has left the title issue whether the subject land is the land owned by the Central Government/SECL or Govt. of Chhattisgar open to be decided by he civil Court in a pending suit instituted by the SECL. Therefore, what remain for decision-making by us are points No. 1 and 4 only.

Point No.1: Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J has opined that in the light of the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India and others (supra) and since the bona fides of the petitioners in these writ petitions being In doubt, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed and accordingly he has dismissed all the three writ petitions with costs quantified at Rs. 25,000/- in each writ petition payable to the Chhattisgarh High Court Legal Services Committee. I am not in a position to agree with the above view of Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J for the reasons to follow:

The Hon''ble Supreme Court itself in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India and others (supra) has made it very clear that though a Public Interest Litigation cannot be entertained at the instance of a malafide writ applicant, but, if the Courts finds that the issue brought before the Court in such a writ petition involves public law obligation, then, it can entertain the writ petition appointing an amicus curiae. The Hon''ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe thus: In given exceptional case where bonafides of a public interest litigant are in doubt, the Court may still examine the issue having regard to the serious nature of the public cause and likely public injury by appointing an Amicus Curiae to assist the court but under no circumstances with the assistance of a doubtful public interest litigant. No trust can be placed by court on a mala fide applicant in public interest litigation." In this batch, there are three writ petitions. Writ Petitions No. 1264 of 2003 was initially filed by Dr. B.L. Wadhera and after his demise Shri Alok Nigam, a Member of this Bar, sought permission of the Court to prosecute the writ petition further and the permission was accorded by the Court. Writ Petition No.4147 of 2003 is filed by Rashtriya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh & four other Trade Unions operating is SECL, whereas writ Petition No. 1382 of 2003 is filed by M/s Sanjay Shrivastava and Surendra Sahu. What weighed with Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J in opining that the writ petitions should be dismissed in limine is the fact that late Dr. B.L.Wadhera, the petitioner in writ petition No.1 264 of 2003, Bhartiya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh, one of the petitioners in writ petition No.4147 of 2003 and Shri Sanjay Shrivastava, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1382 of 2003 had sought their impleadment to the proceedings before the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the application filed by Deepak Agrawal and their applications were dismissed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. That is the only circumstance cited by Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J to hold that the bona files and credentials of the petitioners are in doubt. With great respect, I do not find any soundness in that reasoning or the conclusion reached by learned Judge. In the writ petition filed by Dr. B.L. Wadhera, this Court vide an order dated 24-04-2003 directed maintenance of status quo regarding the property i.e. the land allotted to M/s Maruti and not to cut trees standing on the land. On the service of the order on M/s Maruti, M/s Maruti filed an application for modification thereof. On 09-05-2003, this Court modified the order to the extent that M/s Maruti was allowed to continue with the construction of the main building up to the level of setting up of the machinery It was, however, made clear that beyond the completion of the construction, M/s Maruti would not set up the machinery and would ensure that they would not cut any further trees standing on the land. The construction was to be at M/s Maruti''s risk. Against the aforesaid order, Dr. B.L. Wadhera filed a SLP before the Hon''ble Supreme Court being SLP No. 22531 of 2003. initially, the Hon''ble Supreme Court passed an order granting stay of further construction.

In the meanwhile, one Deepak Agrawal had filed an application in the pending PIL -T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India and others, being WP. (Civil) No.202 of 1995 which was heard by a Special Bench of three Judges of the Hon''ble Supreme Court. The Hon''ble Supreme Court was pleased to refer the allegations made by Deepak Agrawal to the Central Empowered Committee; for short "CEC''d. The CEC made its first report holding that the land was forest land. Detailed objections thereto were filed by the State Government and M s Maruti. By that time, SELC also approached the Hon''ble Supreme Court contending that the land was forest land and it belonged to SECL. The Hon''ble Supreme Court by an order dated 13-08-2004 directed the CEC to examine the matter in detail and to file a report with its recommendations. This led to a second report of the CEC dated 0 I 11-2004 (the second report). In the second report, after detailed examination of the contentions of the various parties including SECL, Deepak Agrawal. State Government, Ministry of Environment and Forest and M/s Maruti, the CEC held that the land was not forest land. Deepak Agrawal filed objections against the second report. That led to the Hon''ble Supreme Court once again directing the CEC to consider the satellite images of the area and to make another report as to whether the land was forest land or not. Accordingly, the CEC submitted its third report dated 14-04-2005. As per the third report also, it was found that the subject land is not a forest land. On that basis, the Hon''ble Supreme Court dismissed the application of Deepak Agrawal and the SLP filed by late Dr. B.L. Wadhera.

A careful perusal of the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India and others (Supra) would show that what the Hon''ble Supreme Court found is the fact that Deepak Agrawal was not a pro bono publico, but set up by a rival business group. I do not find any finding recorded by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in its order to hold that all the petitioners herein are not pro bono publico or that the bona fides and credentials of all the petitioners are in doubt. It is true that the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the order dated 10th April, 2006 has referred to the second report of the CEC in which reference was made to number of cases that were filed in respect of the allotment of the subject land in favour of M/s Maruti in the form of a list and in that list writ petition filed by Late Dr. B.L. Wadhera and the writ petition filed by Shri Sanjay Shrivastava, a relative of Shri K.K. Shrivastava are also included. Except referring to those litigations, as cited in the second report of the CEC, the Hon''ble Supreme Court nowhere in the order considered the bona fides or credentials of any of the 13 litigants referred to in the order except Shri Deepak Agrawal and the relative of Shri Sanjay Shrivastava, namely, Shri K.K. Shrivastava. With regard to the applications filed by the Unions to implead themselves as parties -respondents to the application filed by Deepak Agrawal, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has simply stated that it sees "no reason to allow the implement of parties in these proceedings". Having said it, the Hon''ble Supreme Court proceeded to consider the bona fides of only Shri Deepak Agrawal and none of the other parties. Therefore, it would be totally unjust and unfair and against the public interest to dismiss all these writ petitions filed as public interest litigations to espouse the public cause under the garb of the (sic) of the Hon''ble Supreme Court dated 10th April, 2006 in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India & others (Supra). At this juncture itself, it is relevant to note that the petitioner in W.P. No. 1264 of 2003 with a memo dated 02-08-2006 has enclosed a note-sheet of calculations to highlight that if the impugned lease of the subject land in favour of M/s Maruti stands, what would be the loss to the State and what would be the financial advantage to the lessee. The relevant statement made in the note-sheet reads as follows:

If the Respondents No.5 M/s MARUTI would have taken some land on lease from S.E.C.L. then it would have to pay a rent of Rs. 40,18,460/- per annum for 37.91 acres of land @ Rs.1.25 lakh per acre per annum. Taking into consideration a simple interest 10% every year on the lease rent amount payable cumulatively by MARUTI the amount would come to Rs.5,53,32,43,64,031/- in 99 years which MARUTI would have to pay S.E.C.L. had the land been taken from S.E.C.L. on lease by MARUTI.

A memo of calculation containing two pages is also appended to the note-sheet. I have merely referred to the note-sheet to highlight the stake of the State involved in the case. However, I hasten to add that it cannot be taken that I have accepted the memo of calculations filed by the petitioner in W.P. No. 1264 of 2003 along with note-sheet dated 02-08-2006 as correct. Therefore, I hold that all these writ petitions cannot be dismissed in limine. on the specious and convenient ground that all of them are not pro bono publico and their bona fides and credentials are in doubt. If the Court were to hold so, such finding will be ex facie perverse for want of any evidence on record and it will be a figment of fertile imagination on the part of the Court.

Point No.4 : We have secured the original records relating to the lease of the subject land in favour of M/s Maruti and perused the same. It needs to be noticed that M/s Maruti made an application to the Chief Minister of the Chhattisgarh State on 01-07-2002 for allotment of about 60 acres of land in Nawagaon Khurd without giving necessary detailed of land such as description of the land and also the total cost/investment of the project etc. That application was forwarded to the Sub Divisional Officer, Katghora and the same was received by him on 09-07-2002. On 09-07-2002 itself, the Sub Divisional Officer, Katghora sought ''no objection certificates'' from various departments for khasra Nos. 850/3 to 850/10 of village Nawagaon Khurd, Tehsil Pali, District Korba. On 27-07-2002, the Town and Country Planning Department wrote a letter to the Sub Divisional Officer, Katghora pointing out that Patwari paper and maps of khasra No.850/3 to 850/10, total admeasuring 60 acres of village Nawagaon Khurd were not sent with the letter seeking ''no objection certificates'' and seeking some more informations and particulars. Quite curisously, when the matter stood thus, on 29-07-2002, a memo was issued by the office of Patwari in respect of a different land and not for the land applied by M/s. Maruti, that is to say, for fresh khasra Nos.850/'' 23 to 850/30 situate in village Ratiza. On 31-07-2002, the Sub Divisional Officer, Katghora issued a memo negating the objection raised by the Town and Country Planning Department and refusing to furnish the particulars and informations sought by it about the subject land. As per the report of the Sub Divisional Officer, Katghora dated 31-07-2002 which is based on the report of the jurisdictional Revenue Inspector, the subject land was left out in the last land survey and, therefore, fresh khasra numbers had to be given to 58.56 acres of land situate in village Ratiza (sec, curiously now the word ''Nawagaon Khurd'' is dropped) comprised in khasra Nos. 850/22 to 850/29. As per the revenue records, Rules and Regulations, if any land is left un-surveyed, then, after a proper survey, new numbers are to be given.

When the matter stood thus, on 08-08-2002, M/s Maruti Explochem Pvt. Ltd. moved a fresh application to Collector, Korba to allot 37.91 acres of land in khasra Nos. 850/23 to 850/29 situate in village Ratiza, Tehsil Pali. District Korba. On 20-08-2002, the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur Division on behalf of the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, addressed a letter to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department seeking certain clarifications with regard to allotment of 37.91 acres of land in khasra Nos. 850/23 to 850/29 in Ratiza village, in favour of M/s Maruti, viz, whether the subject land was left out in the last settlement survey in 1930, whether the Commissioner has the power under Sections 68 and 69 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short the Code") to give fresh khasra numbers and whether the Collector has the power to give fresh khasra numbers only during the times of settlement and not otherwise. By proceedings dated 09-10-2002, the Collector, Korba directed that the subject land be given regular khasra Nos. 850/23 to 850/29. At this stage itself, it needs to be noticed that no order of the Government is placed on record to show that the State Government had issued any special direction u/s 90 of the Code empowering the Collector, Korba to exercise powers of settlement officer under sections 68 to 73 of the Code.

Above are the facts born out from the records. Now the point to be considered is whether the grant made in favour of M/s Maruti suffers from procedural impropriety as contended by the petitioners. As per the clause 19 of the Revenue Book Circular, the applicant for the grant is required to give full particulars such as khasra number, its area, location and/or district, type of land, its classification and occupancy, if any in its application. Such application for allotment of land must accompany revenue land records of the land with corresponding maps to ensure identification. No allotment of land is legally permissible if the land is un-surveyed, because, un-surveyed land cannot be identified properly.

In the instant case, imagine khasra numbers 850/23 to 850 29 were given to the subject land by the Collector though the subject land, as records would reveal, is an un-surveyed land. No provisions of the Code brought to our notice which could authorize the Collector or any other Revenue Authority to assign imaginary Khasra numbers to un-surveyed land for the purpose of leasing. The complete and comprehensive procedure of survey is specified in sections 68 to 73 of the Code.

As per section 90 of the Code, after closer of the revenue survey and during the terms of settlement, i.e. during its currency, the Collector when so directed by the State Government may exercise the powers under Sections 68 to 73 of The Code. As per Section 85 of the Code, the term of settlement is 30 years. Of course, that term can be extended by the State Government. In the instant case, as noticed above, records to not disclose any order of the State Government directing the Collector to exercise the powers under Sections 68 to 73 of the Code The return of the State Government also silent on this issue. This point was also raised by the Revenue Commissioner in his S.O. dated 20-08-2002 addressed to the State Government. It needs to be noticed that the process of revenue surveys as prescribed under Sections 68 to 73 of the Code with due notices to all interested parties is intended to ensure proper survey and identification of the lands. It is the admitted case that no notice of any such revenue survey was given to any person, natural or legal, including SECL. Even the Gram Sabha was not notified about the revenue survey

All powers of the settlement are vested in the State Government under the Code. These powers are to be exercised exclusively by the Officers invested with the power to perform the statutory duty as may be delegated by the State Government in terms of the Section 65 of the Code. Section 65 to 73 of the Code provide procedure to be followed by the Settlement Officer in the process of revenue survey under the Code The term of settlement is fixed by the State Government, but it shall not be less than 30 years. The term of settlement is extendable until the commencement of the term of the subsequent settlement in that area as provided u/s 85 of the Code Section 66 of the Code reads as follows:

Definition of Revenue Survey - The operations carried out in accordance with the provisions of this part, that is to say - (1) all or any of the operations pertaining to the division of land into survey numbers and grouping them into villages, recognition of existing survey numbers, reconstitution thereof or forming new survey numbers and operations incidental thereto; (2) soil classification;

(3) preparation or, as the case may be, revision or correction of filed map;

(4) preparation of record of rights, in order to bring the land records up to date in any local, over area;

are called a revenue survey." Section 67 of the Code reads as follows :

Notification of proposed revenue survey - (1) Whenever the State Government decides that a revenue survey, should be made of any local area, it shall publish a notification to that effect, and such local area shall be held to be under such survey from the date of such notification until the issue of a notification declaring the operation to be closed;

(2) Such notification may extend to all lands generally in the local area or to such lands only as the State Government may direct." The Rules regarding formation of survey numbers have been notified u/s 68 of the Code. The said Rules provide the manner and the method for numbering or renumbering, alteration, re-alteration, amalgamation, division etc. The process of numbering and renumbering or amalgamation of revenue lands is to be completed during the revenue survey. Where settlement operations are closed, all the applications and proceedings then pending before the Settlement Officer shall be forwarded to the Collector who shall have the power of disposal. However, this process is applicable only for such applications or proceedings, which are pending before the Settlement Officer, at the time when the settlement closed, as per Section 86 of the Code. In the present case, settlement was closed in the year 1929-1930.

In the light of the provisions of the Code noted above and what the original records reflect to the lease of the land in favour of Ms Maruti, I am of the considered opinion that the contention of the petitioners that the lease of the subject land in favour of M/s Maruti is vitiated on account of infraction of mandatory provisions of the Code and that it suffers from serious procedural impropriety, is wholly justified and consequently, the impugned grant cannot be sustained.

In the result and for the foregoing reasons, I allow all these three writ petitions (W.P. Nos. 1264 of 2003, 4147 of 2003 and 1382 of 2003 and quash the impugned orders of the Government of Chhattisgarh dated 05-12-2002 as well as the agreement dated 07-12-2002 allotting the subject land in favour of M/s Maruti Clean Coal & Power Ltd. with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) payable to the petitioners in each of the three writ petitions. I, however, make it clear that this order shall not in any way weigh with or influence the decision- making by the Civil Court in the pending civil suit instituted by the SECL, and that that suit shall be decided on its own merit and the evidence that the parties to the suit may adduce, in accordance with law.

ORDER

Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.

In these writ petitions filed as Public Interest Litigation, the allocation of 37.91 acres land, situated in village Ratiza, District Korba, Chhattisgarh, on 99 years lease by the State Government of Chhattisgarh to M/s Maruti Clean Coal & Power Limited, respondent herein for setting up of coal washery is under challenge on the following grounds:

A) that the aforesaid land is forest land and as such by virtue of Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act of 1980 prior permission of the Central Government was a sine qua non before allocation to M/s Maruti Clean Coal & Power Limited. B) that the aforesaid land which is forest land and was acquired by the Central Government for the respondent-South Eastern Coalfields Limited in 1985-86 under Coal Bearing Area (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 could not be allocated to M/s Maruti Clean Coal & Power Limited for setting up of Coal Washery.

C) on ground of certain procedural irregularities in allocation of the land by the State Government of Chhattisgarh to M/s Maruti Clean Coal & Power Limited.

Writ Petition No. 1264 of 2003 filed by Dr. B.L. Wadhera does not raise the question of procedural irregularity by the State Government of Chhattisgarh in the matter of allotment of aforesaid land to M/s Maruti Clean Coal & Power Limited. It only raises the question (A) as aforesaid.

The respondent No. 5-S.E.C.L. has in its return filed in WP.No.1264 of 2003 in paragraph 18 clearly stated that the S.E.C.L. Company is operating in the State of Chhattisgarh and it was neither in the interest of the Company nor in the interest of the State that it rushed to a Court of law. Shri P.S. Nair, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the S.E.C.L. did not dispute that a title suit was pending in the Civil Court of Katghora with regard to the aforesaid land. In its return filed in W.P. No.l264 of 2003, the S.E.C.L. has questioned the authority of the State Government on the ground that once the land is taken over under the provisions of Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition & Development) Act, 1957, the State Government is denuded of any power whatsoever over the land directly or indirectly. The land being all along in possession of the S.E.C.L., the State Government''s action in allotting a part of the land situated in village Ratiza to M/s Maruti Clean Coal & Power Limited is without jurisdiction, arbitrary and unjust.

Shri Arun Jaitley, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of M/s Maruti Clean Coal & Power Limited contended that in view of the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad (through K.M. Chinnappa) Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , all the aforesaid writ petitions are liable to be dismissed at the threshold for the reason that none of the petitioners can, under any circumstances, be said to be bona fide Public Interest Litigants. On the contrary, by the binding authority of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, they have been held to be acting mala fidely as set up by a business rival, Aryan Coal Beneficiation Pvt. Ltd. It was argued that the induction of Shri Alok Nigam, a local counsel at Bilaspur, after the death of Dr. B.L. Wadhera, a resident of Delhi in W.P. No. 1264 of 2003, clearly revealed that the petitioner Alok Nigam was merely a name lender set up by the adversaries as M/s Maruti Clean Coal & Power Limited. So far as Sanjay Srivastava is concerned, it was contended that he is admittedly a relative of K.K. Srivastava whose credentials and bonafides were held to be in doubt in Godavarman''s case by the Hon''ble Apex Court. Thus, there was no doubt that Sanjay Srivastava was also a set up by K.K. Srivastava, and therefore, by Aryan Coal Beneficiation Pvt. Limited. It was also pointed out that the Hon''ble Apex Court has refused intervention by the Trade Unions (Petitioners in W.P. No. 4147 of 2003) who had attempted to jump into the fray by filing intervention application. Under these circumstances, it was evident that the petitioners in all the three writ petitions lack bonafides, and therefore, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Godavarman''s case, all these three writ petitions are liable to be dismissed in limine without going into the merits. It was also contended that the Hon''ble Supreme Court has conclusively held by accepting the second report of Central Empowered Committee that the land allotted to M/s Maruti Clean Coal & Power Limited formed part of village Nawagaon Khurd until the year 2002 when for the first time it was merged as part of the village Ratiza. The question whether land allotted to M/s Maruti Clean Coal & Power Limited in village Ratiza was acquired in 1986 as part of the notification, therefore, did not arise.

Writ Petition No. 1264 of 2003 was filed by one Dr. B.L. Wadhera, aged about 74 years, a resident of New Delhi. After his death, one Alok Nigam, aged 27 years, resident of Bilaspur and by profession Advocate, was brought on record as the petitioner. Writ petition No.1382 of 2003 was filed by Sanjay Srivastava and Shri Surendra Sahu, both residents of Korba, as pro bono public character. Writ Petition No.4147 of 2003 was filed by Rashtriya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh and other similar labour unions in similar capacity.

During the pendency of these writ petitions, one Deepak Agrawal, claming to be public spirited person and a journalist by profession had filed I.A. No. 858 of 2003 for intervention before the Hon''ble Apex Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India & Others (Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995) wherein the allocation of land in question in these writ petitions allotted by the State Government of Chhattisgarh to M/s Maruti Clean Coal & Power Limited for setting up of Coal Washery was under challenge on the ground that the land is forest land. This fact was taken note of on 09.05.200.5 by this Court in the order sheet of W.P. No. 1264 of 2003 as under:

Even Mr. Tankha mentioned during hearing that one Mr. Deepak Agrawal filed an I.A. before the Supreme Court in the forest matter i.e. W.P.. No. 202/95 regarding the land in question and matter has been referred by the Hon''ble Supreme Court to the Central Empowered Committee for Enquiry set up by the Supreme Court in that matter." In that petition, Bhartiya Koyala Khadan Mazdoor Sangh, petitioner herein in W.P. No. 4147 of 2003, late Dr. B.L. Wadhera, the petitioner herein in W.P. No. 1264 of 2003 and Sanjay Srivastava, the petitioner herein in W.P. No. 1382 of 2003 sought intervention. The Apex Court vide its judgment dated 10th of April 2006 rejected the prayer for impleadment by the aforesaid petitioners. The Apex Court held that the land in question was not a forest land and formed part of village Nawagaon Khurd and not of village Ratiza and the land allotted had not formally merged and made part of village Ratiza in the Settlement (Bandobast) carried out during 1928-29. Besides, in the aforesaid petitions filed before the Apex Court, the State of Chhattisgarh, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Forest Conservation of India and even South Eastern Coalfields Limited did not question the conclusion of the Central Empowered Committee that the land in question is not a forest land. The Apex Court held that the applicant Intervener Deepak Agrawal had abused the process of law and there was waste of enormous judicial time. The Apex Court held that since the application filed by Deepak Agrawal was far from bono fide and he had been set up by others and was nothing but a name lender, the filing of an entirely misconceived and mala fide application in the garb of Public Interest Litigation by Deepak Agrawal was strongly deprecated. The Apex Court awarded exemplary costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- payable by the applicant-Deepak Agrawal to the Central Empowered Committee while disposing of the S.L.P.

Shri Vivek K. Tankha, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for Alok Nigam, Shri M.L. Verma, Sr. Advocate appearing for Sanjay Srivastava and Surendra Sahu and Shri Jagmohan Sabharwal, Advocate appearing for Rashtriya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh conceded at the very outset that in view of the decision of the Apex Court, the question whether the land in question is forest land or not does not survive for adjudication in these writ petitions.

In Godavarman''s case, the Apex Court observed as under:

For the last few years, inflow of public interest litigation has increased manifold. A considerable judicial time is spent in dealing with such cases. A person acting bona fide alone can approach the court in public interest. Such a remedy is not open to an unscrupulous person who acts, in fact, for someone else. The liberal rule of locus standi exercised in favour of bona fide public interest litigants has immensely helped the cause of justice. Such litigants have been instrumental in drawing attention of this Court and High Courts in matters of utmost importance and in securing orders and directions for many under-privileged such as, pavement dwellers, bonded labour, prisoners conditions, children, sexual harassment of girls and women, cases communal riots, innocent killings, torture, long custody in prison without trial or in the matters of environment, illegal stone quarries, illegal mining, pollution of air and water, clean fuel, hazardous and polluting industries or preservation of forest as in the Godavarman''s case. While this Court has laid down a chain of notable decisions with all emphasis at their command about the importance and significance of this newly developed doctrine of PIL, it has also hastened to sound a red alert and a note of severe warning that courts should not allow its process to be abused by a merely busybody or a meddlesome interloper or wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or concern except for personal gain or private profit or other oblique consideration (See Janata Dal vs. H.S. Chowdhary & Ors. [1992] 4 SCC 3051)

The Apex Court also took into consideration the observations in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, while taking note of earlier decisions wherein it was observed as under :

It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but express our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing the gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters -government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of cases wherein huge amounts of public revenue or unauthorised collection of tax amounts are locked up, detenus expecting their release from detention orders etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the courts and having their grievances redressed, busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity, break the queue muffling their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the courts and as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system. It was further said: Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith, and prevent law from crafty invasions. Courts must maintain the social balance by interfering where necessary for the sake of justice and refuse to interfere where it is against the social interest and public good. (See State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu and Andhra Pradesh State Fiancial Corporation v. GAR Re Rolling Mills and Anr.) No litigant has a right to unlimited draught on the court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions. |See Buddfu Ktna Subbarao (Dr) V.K. Parasaranl Today people rush to courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name of public interest. They must inspire confidence in courts and among the public. The Apex Court while rejecting the prayers for intervention by the present petitioners in the case of T.N. Godavarman (supra) observed that "howsoever genuine a cause brought before a court by a public interest litigant may be, the court has to decline its examination at the behest of a person who, in fact, is not a public interest litigant and whose bonafides and credentials are in doubt. Observations of the Apex Court in paras 5,13,15,16 & 17 of the judgment in the case of Kushum Lata Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, are apt to be noted and read as follows:

When there is material to show that petition styled as a public interest litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal disputes, the said petition is to be thrown out. Before we grapple with the issue involved in the present case, we feel it necessary to consider the issue regarding public interest aspect. Public interest litigation which has now come to occupy an important field in the administration of law should not be "publicity interest litigation" or "private interest litigation" or "politics interest litigation" or the latest trend "paise income litigation". The High Court has found that the case at hand belongs to the second category. If not properly regulated and abuse averted, it becomes also a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreak vengeance, as well. There must be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and not merely an adventure of a knight errant borne out of wishful thinking. It cannot also be invoked by a person or a body of persons to further his or their personal causes or satisfy his or their personal grudge and enmity. The courts of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the extraordinary jurisdiction. A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of public interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary and Others, and State of Maharashtra and Others Vs. Uttamrao Rayala Nikam, . A writ petitioner who comes to the court for relief in public interest must come not only with clean hands like any other writ petitioner but also with a clean heart, clean mind and clean objective. (See The Ramjas Foundation and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, and K.R. Srinivas Vs. R.M. Premchand and Others, Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and or publicity-seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As indicated above, the court must be careful to see that a body of persons or member of public, who approaches the court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique considerations. The court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives, and try to bargain for a good deal as well to enrich themselves. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busybodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.

The court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. The 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.

The courts must do justice by promotion of good faith and prevent law from crafty invasions. The courts must maintain the social balance by interfering where necessary for the sake of justice and refuse to interfere where it is against the social interest and public good. (See State of Maharashtra and Others Vs. Prabhu, and Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation Vs. M/s. GAR Re-Rolling Mills and another, . No litigant has a right to unlimited draught on the court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions. [See Dr. Buddhi Kota Subbarao Vs. K.Parasaran and others, . Today people rush to the courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name of public interest. They must inspire confidence in the courts and among the public.

As noted supra, a time has come to weed out the petitions, which though titled as public interest litigations are in essence something else. It is shocking to note that the courts are flooded with a large number of so-called public interest litigations whereby a minuscule percentage can legitimately be called as public interest litigation. Though the parameters of public interest litigation have been indicated by this Court in a large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, the courts are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above, could be otherwise utilized for disposal of genuine cases. Though in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Others Etc. Etc. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Others Etc. Etc., 1802 : AIR 1999 SC 114, this Court held that in service matters PILs should not be entertained, the inflow of so-called PILs involving service matters by competitors continue unabated in the courts and strangely are entertained. The least the High Courts could do is to throw them out on the basis of the said decision. The other interesting aspect is that in PILs, official documents are being annexed without even indicating as to how the petitioner came to possess them. In one case, it was noticed that an interesting answer was given as to its possession. It was stated that a packet was lying on the road and when out of curiosity the petitioner opened it, he found copies of the official documents. Apart form the sinister manner, if any of getting such copies, the real brain or force behind such cases would get exposed to find out the truth and motive behind the petition. Whenever such frivolous pleas, as noted, are taken to explain possession, the court should do well not only to dismiss the petitions but also to impose exemplary costs. It is also noticed that the petitions are based on newspaper reports without any attempt to verify their authenticity. As observed by this Court in several cases, newspaper reports do not constitute evidence. A petition based on unconfirmed news reports, without verifying their authenticity should not normally be entertained. As noted above, such petitions do not provide any basis for verifying the correctness of statements made and information given in the petition. It would be desirable for the courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as aforestated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the courts.

In writ Petition 1062 of 2004 (Amit Singh Walia Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others), a Division Bench of this Court considered the aforesaid observations in details and concluded that the petition filed by Amit Singh Walia, a practicing Advocate at Raipur, far from being bona fide was a motivated petition to subserve the interest of their clients i.e. M/s Maruti Clean Coal & Power Limited against their business rival M/s Aryan Coal Beneficiation Limited. The writ petition was dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.25,000,-.

In Godavarman''s case (supra), the Hon''ble Apex Court held that howsoever genuine a cause brought before a court by a public interest litigant may be, the court has to decline its examination at the behest of a person who, in fact, is not a public interest litigant and whose bonafides and credentials are in doubt". So far as the petitioner-San jay Srivastava in W.P. No. 1382 of 2003 is concerned, he was one of the interveners in Godavarman''s case and a relative of K.K. Srivastava. The report of the Central Empowered Committee in Godavarman''s case stated thus :

After considering the number of cases, filed on this issue, the documents filed by M/s Maruti regarding alleged nexus between Mr. K.K. Srivastava with M/s Aryan, reduction in the washed coal prices agreed to by M, s Aryan after an offer at a cheaper rate was made by M''s Maruti to Gujarat Electricity Board, annual account of Bilaspur Enviornment Society. SECL''s own use of revenue forest land on a large scale, prima-facie there appears to be some merit in the contention of M/s Maruti that the plethora of cases in various Courts have been filed on behalf of its competitor M/s Aryan with a view to prevent him from establishing the coalwashery, and not in public interest. The claim made by Mr. K.K. Srivastava that he is a public spirited person involved in protection of environment and forests and that he is not getting financial support from anybody but is spending from his own resources and contribution from his friends and relations, is difficult to accept on its face value;

The Apex Court refused the impleadment of Sanjay Srivastava in the Godavarman''s case. I have no doubt that Sanjay Srivastava is merely a name lender and is acting at the behest of M/s Aryan Coal Private Limited in W.P. No. 1382 of 2003 filed under the garb of PIL. This writ petition also substantially raises the issue that land area 37.91 acres allotted to M/s Maruti Explochem Private Limited was a forest land. In my considered opinion, Sanjay Srivastava is nothing but a masked phantom appearing at the behest of M/s Aryan Coal Private Limited, a lessee of S.E.C.L., who was operating in the area and having monopoly, and a competitor to M/s Maruti Clean Coal and Power Limited.

So far as Writ Petition No. 1264 of 2003 filed by late Mr. B.L. Wadhera, a resident of Delhi and the facts that after his death one Mr. Alok Nigam, a practicing advocate at Bilaspur, has jumped into the fray under the garb of being a crusader of justice, is concerned, the report of the Central Empowered Committee indicted Mr. B.L. Wadhera, the petitioner in W.P. No. 1264 of 2003, as a result of which, the Apex Court refused his impleadment in the proceedings in Godavarman''s case. Similar is the fate of the petitioner namely Bhartiya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh, who had also filed an application for intervention before the Hon''ble Apex Court, which request was turned down. W.P. No. 4147 of 2003 also substantially raises the main issue that the allotted lands are forest lands while also raising the question of procedural irregularity as by way of additional submission. The observation made in Godavarman''s case by the Hon''ble Apex Court leave no room for any doubt that the bonafides and credentials of the petitioners in all these writ petitions are in doubt, and therefore, since the Hob''ble Apex Court had refused intervention by these writ petitioners, these petitions deserve to be dismissed in limine being clearly and demonstratively camouflaged since the real persons behind these petitioners is a competitor of M/s Maruti Clean Coal and Power Limited who was operating in the area and having monopoly.

Another factor that merits consideration is that the S.E.C.L. has already filed a title suit relating to the aforesaid land in the Court of Civil Judge Class-II, Katghora, District Korba, which was also taken note of by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the Godavarman''s case. During hearing on 9.5.2003, Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for M/s Maruti Clean Coal & Power Limited, Respondent No.5 drew our attention to letter dated 07.05.2003 issued by Ministry of Coal to M/s Maruti Clean Coal & Power Limited and the reaction of Shri P.S. Nair, learned counsel for S.E.C.L. is quoted by us in the order sheet dated 09.05.2003 as follows :

-He even referred to the letter dated 07/05/2003 issued by the Director Technical, Ministry of Coal by which it has been conveyed on behalf of the Ministry of Coal that in view of the dispute between the SECL and the State Government regarding titile of the land in question it was directed that the SECL should either wait until the issue of the title is finally resolved or they can consider giving the land is question on lease to respondent No.5 for setting up a Coal Washery. On the other hand, counsel for the petitioner and counsel for SECL, respondent no.4 argued that the land in question is a forest land and it was allotted to the SECL, as such the State Government has allotted the land without title and without authority, therefore, respondent No.5 cannot be allowed to proceed with the construction.

Shri P.S. Nair, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the S.E.C.L. drew our attention to the letter No.43011/3/2003-CRC, dated 7th May 2003 written by the Government of India, Ministry of Coal to M/s Maruti Clean Cool and Power Limited upon its request letter dated 21.03.2003 addressed to Hon''ble Minister of Coal requesting that S.E.C.L. be advised to accord N.O.C. for setting up of its Coal Washery whereby two options were given to M/s Maruti Clean Coal and power Limited as follows:

a) to wait until the issue of titile is finally resolved; b) to proceed on assumption that the title of land in question vests with S.E.C.L. and on that basis request for allotment as per the guidelines issued by Department of Coal, (Ministry of Mines and Minerals) in this regard on 2nd November 1999. In case it is established that the title of the land does not vest with S.E.C.L., Maruti Clean Coal and Power limited could seek refund of the amount so paid.

Shri P.S. Nair, learned Sr. Advocate also pointed out that in reply to this, M/s. Maruti Clean Coal and Power Limited, vide its letter dated 8.5.2003, without prejudice, has opted for clause (b) and have requested S.E.C.L. to initiate allotment/leasing proceedings of land already in possession of M/s Maruti Clean Coal & Power Limited while undertaking to follow the guidelines and to pay the required expenses i.e. lease premium,lease rent and other charges as per rules. This also clearly shows that no public injury whatsoever is involved in these writ petitions which merit dismissal at the very threshold.

It is also pertinent to note that the Hon''ble Supreme Court has in its judgment in Godavarman''s case accepted the second report of the Central Empowered Committee and held that the land allotted to M/s Maruti Clean Coal and Power Limited formed part of village Nawagaon Khurd until the year 2002 when, for the first time, it was merged as part of village Ratija. It is not disputed that vide notification issued on 11th April 1986 under the Coal Bearing Area (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 referred to the specific village for which the land is being acquired, no land in village Nawagaon Khurd was covered by the notification. Therefore, the question whether land allotted to M/s Maruti Clean Coal and Power Limited in the year 1986 formed part of village Ratija also does not survive for adjudication in these writ petitions. It is for the S.E.C.L. to specifically plead and prove this fact in the title suit.

It is also pertinent to note that no agriculturist or Gram Panchayat of Ratija and Nawagaon Khurd have come forward to make any grievance whatsoever regarding the allocation of land by the State Government Chhattisgarh to M/s Maruti Clean Coal and Power Limited. The allotted land is not a private land and no public injury is caused by the allotment of the aforesaid land. So far as the question of procedural irregularity in allocation of land to M/s Maruti Clean Coal and Power Limited is concerned, once it is held that these writ petitions do not fall within the scope of PIL and are merely private interest litigations at the behest of a competitor i.e. M/s Aryan Coal Private Limited which is a lessee of S.E.C.L. and sole operator in the field, that question also does not survive for adjudication in these writ petitions. It is also pertinent to note that the S.E.C.L. the main aggrieved party has not specifically raised the question of procedural irregularity in the matter of allotment of land, in its return filed in W.P. No.1264 of 2003 (Dr. B.L. Wadhera). It did not file any return in the other writ petitions.

To conclude, in the light of Hon''ble Apex Court''s judgment in Godavarman''s case and the bonafides of the petitioners in Writ Petitions No.l''264/2003,1382 2003 and 4147/2003 being in doubt, I decline to examine the question of procedural irregularity in the allotment of land in area 37.91 acres by the State Government of Chhattisgarh to M/s Maruti Clean Coal & Power Limited at the behest of the petitioners, who are not public interest litigants and whose bonafides and credentials are in doubt.

The fact that Senior Advocates Shri Vivek Krishna Tankha, Shri M.L. Verma and Shri Jagmohan Sabharwal from the side of the petitioners and Shri Shanti Bhushan (See Order Sheet dt. 09.05.2003), Shri Arun Jaitley and Smt. Nalini Chidambaram and Shri P. Sadasivan Nair, appeared from the (sic)e of respondents, there remains not even an iota of doubt that this legal latter not at the behest of the petitioners in public interest but between M/s Arvan Coal Private Limited, a sole player in the field, and M/s Maruti Claim (sic) & Power Limited, a competitor. These writ petitions do not fall within the category of public interest litigation in pro bono public character and the petitioners in these petitions are merely name lenders. There is, thus, no room for any doubt that M/s Aryan Coal Private Limited, who is a strong business rival of Ms Maruti Clean Coal & Power Limited has initiated such trumpery proceedings under the garb of P.I.L. resulting in waste of innumerable days which time could otherwise have been spent for disposal of cases of genuine litigants. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that in view of the Apex Court Judgment in Godavarman''s case all the three writ petitions deserve dismissal in limine while awarding costs on the petitioners.

In the result and for the foregoing reasons, Writ Petitions Nos. 1264 of 2003,1382 of 2003 and 4147 of 2003 are dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.25,000/- in each writ petition, payable to the Chhattisgarh High Court Legal Service Committee, within a period of 15 days from today.