 filed seeking direction to the Bharat Aluminum Company Limited (BALCO) to acquire suitable land and develop it and carry out the steps to rehabilitate the residents of the Shanti Nagar Area in Korba.){kind=link}
The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking direction to the Bharat Aluminum Company Limited (BALCO) to acquire suitable land and develop it and carry out the steps to rehabilitate the residents of the Shanti Nagar Area in Korba.
Facts in brief are that in the year 2010 respondent/Balco started raising construction for erection of cooling tower in Shanti Nagar area and for this purpose, acquired the lands of 87 families of Shanti Nagar, Balco. As per agreement between the parties, the affected persons would be rehabilitated and compensated. However, no rehabilitation of the affected families has been done till date despite direction by State Of Chhattisgarh (respondent No.1) in this regard to respondent/Balco in the meeting dated 6.4.2013.
Earlier PIL in 2013 was filed for direction to Balco authorities to abide by the terms of the agreement and also to rehabilitate the affected families of Shanti Nagar, which was subsequently withdrawn in view of affidavit filed by Balco with the hope that Balco will perform its part of the agreement. However, despite giving an undertaking when no compensation was paid and no steps for rehabilitation was taken, another PIL in 2017 was filed in which respondent/Balco filed an affidavit stating therein only about compensation and not about rehabilitation. The said petition was dismissed vide order dated 8.5.2018 with an observation that if the respondent fails to adhere to the undertaking in terms of tripartite agreement dated 24.9.2014, the petitioner may move appropriate proceedings either by way of fresh petition or by filing contempt petition.
Since the respondent/Balco has though paid compensation to the affected families but no private land has been acquired for rehabilitation of the affected residents of Shanti Nagar, the instant petition has been filed.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that once respondent No.1 has directed the respondent/Balco authorities for rehabilitation of the residents of Shanti Nagar, they are duty bound to comply with the same. It is the mandate of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 that rehabilitation, compensation and re-settlement are the essential features for acquiring any land. Due to arbitrary action of the respondent/Balco authorities, the residents of Shanti Nagar are forced to live in unhygienic condition which is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate appearing for BALCO (respondent No.3) submits that the petitioner’s mother had already received an amount of Rs.23,42,823/- as sale consideration of her house from the respondent No.3, but subsequently, she preferred a petition in 2018 through the present petitioner seeking interest on the aforesaid amount, which is pending adjudication.
He further submits that on similar issue, one NGO has already filed a petition in 2005 before the Supreme Court, in which the respondent No.3 herein is also a party to the petition and the same is pending adjudication. Therefore, the petition may kindly not be entertained at this stage, as the issue involved in the present petition is already subjudice before the Supreme Court. He further submits that the petitioner has also filed a petition in 2020 seeking direction to the respondent State authorities to remove the power plant of 540 MW constructed at Balco Nagar by respondent No.3 as the same has been constructed illegally without environmental clearance and without permission from concerned authorities.
The said petition has been dismissed today holding that the same does not involve any issue of public interest. Hence, the present petition may also be dismissed in terms of the order dated 31.7.2023 passed in PIL of 2020.
Having considered the rival submissions of the counsel for the parties and gone through the record, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Rajani Dubey noted that it is the duty of the Court to ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive and oblique notice behind filing of PIL. In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, the Courts must encourage genuine and bonafide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations.
“The Courts should, prima facie, verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL. It is also well-settled that the Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Courts should ensure that the jurisdiction in public interest is invoked for genuine purposes by persons who have bona fide credentials and who do not seek to espouse or pursue any extraneous object. Otherwise, the jurisdiction in public interest can become a source of misuse by private persons seeking to pursue their own vested interests”, observed by the High Court.
In view of the foregoing discussions and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the High do not find any locus of the petitioner in this matter, as the petitioner has failed to show any incidence in which the public interest has been violated.