The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), which held that domestic consumers of electricity in Bhilai Steel Plant Township were entitled for the benefits of Electricity Bill Half Scheme like other domestic consumers of the state with effect from March 1, 2019 and that its denial was arbitrary and unreasonable.
Brief facts of the case are that the Chief Minister of the State of Chhattisgarh in budget speech dated 08.02.2019, in the legislative assembly announced the electricity bill half Scheme for all domestic consumers in the State which was thereafter implemented by the order of Council of Ministers issued by Respondent No.1 (State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Secretary Government Of Chhattisgarh , Chief Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh) on 21.02.2019 and order dated 27.02.2019, issued by Respondent No.2 (The Secretary, Department of Energy, Government of Chhattisgarh) but the said orders unreasonably left out the 35000 households of the Bhilai Steel Plant (BSP) township, Bhilai, Chhattisgarh because of which they are being denied the benefit of the electricity bill half scheme on consumption of electricity up to 400 unit per month since the implementation of the scheme from 01.03.2019 while all other domestic consumers of the State are getting the benefit of the Scheme. Since the said differentiation is arbitrary and unreasonable hence this petition.
Swajeet Singh Ubeja . the counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition has been filed by way of public interest litigation and the petitioner has no personal interest other than being a resident of the Bhilai Steel Plant Township. He also submits that the petitioner earlier was a member of Legislative assembly and also served as Speaker of Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly from 2003 to 2008 and was cabinet Minister in Chhattisgarh Government from 2013 to 2018. He further submits that the Petition is being filed in the interest of around 35000 households of the Bhilai Township who are being denied the benefit of the Electricity Bill Half Scheme of the State of Chhattisgarh. He lastly submits that the petitioner has earlier not filed any other public interest litigation and the petitioner is filing the present petition on his own and not at the instance of someone else and the source of information of the facts pleaded in this public interest litigation, is based on government orders, documents available in the public domain and documents obtained under Right to Information Act. and the petitioner has made representation in this regard to all the concerned authorities/respondents but has not received any reply.
On the other hand, Chandresh Shrivastava, Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State referring to the relief object that the present petition is not maintainable as public interest litigation.
P. R. Patankar, counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 (Bhilai Steel Plant Unit Of The Steel Authority Of India Limited) pointing out that the present petition is politically motivated as the petitioner belongs to a political party and had earlier remained a member of Legislative Assembly has approached this Hon’ble Court for getting executed the declaration of other political party for which writ remedy is not proper as the matter relates to the policy making by the Authority concerned therefore, the petition is not maintainable.
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 or oblique motive 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 also 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.
“In the instant case, the petitioner claims himself to be a member of Legislative Assembly and also served as Speaker of Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly from 2003 to 2008 and was cabinet Minister in Chhattisgarh Government from 2013 to 2018. The main grievance of the petitioner appears to be is considering the nature of relief sought by the petitioner in the instant petition, it is more in realm of policy matter of the State and by way of present petition, petitioner intents for a direction for getting executed promises declared by political party in its’ Election Manifesto (jan Ghoshna Patra). The discretionary jurisdiction of the writ Court can only be exercised when there is any violation of fundamental rights of any individual or citizen but not for getting executed any political declaration made by political party. Therefore, the present petition is bogus and bereft of any ground as there is no element of public interest involved in this petition and nothing has been disclosed as to which rights of the public at large is being affected. The petition also lacks proper pleadings and is sketchy as no instance of any fraud has been disclosed “, the order reads.