The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking direction to the respondent authorities to remove the power plant of 540 MW constructed at Balco Nagar by Bharat Aluminum Company Limited (respondent No.7), which is alleged to have been constructed illegally without environmental clearance from the office of Secretary, Department Of Housing And Environment, Mantralaya (respondent Nos.3) & Chhattisgarh Environmental Conservation Board (respondent Nos.5) and without permission from the Joint Director, Town And Country Panning, Korba (respondent No.6) as well.
Shikhar Sharma, counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.7 has illegally constructed a power plant of 540 M.W. without any change of land use, which was constructed in the year 2003, without any approval from the respondent No.6 and even no environmental clearance was sought for by the respondent Nos.3 & 5, upon which complaints were made to the respondent authorities. The respondent No.6 vide its letter dated 05.08.2011 directed the respondent No.7 to remove the said construction within 30 days, but the same was not done. On 28.02.2014 as well, the respondent No.6 wrote a letter to the respondent No.7 apropos inoperation of the aforesaid power plant, but the same went in vain as well. Subsequently, a complaint was also made to the Hon’ble Chief Minister on 03.07.2019 regarding the same, but the same has also not been acted upon. Therefore, the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to remove the illegal construction of the aforesaid power plant done by the respondent No.7.
Abhishek Sinha ,Senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.7 opposes the submission made by the petitioner’s counsel and submits that the respondent No.7 is already having approval from the respondent No.6 for construction of the aforesaid power plant as per the provisions of Section 30 (5) of the Chhattisgarh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973. The respondent No.7 as a matter of abundant precaution had already submitted an application on 02.04.2003 before the respondent No.6 under Section 29 of the Adhiniyam, 1973, but there has been no refusal or rejection till date, whereas the respondent No.6 was obligated to communicate his decision within 60 days from the date of the application as per Section 30 (5) of the Adhiniyam, 1973.
The Senior counsel further submits that the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands, as the tripartite agreement was already executed between the respondent No.7 and the residents of the aforesaid society at an agreed price in order to amicably resolve the dispute. The petitioner’s mother had already received an amount of Rs.23,42,823/- as sale consideration of her house from the respondent No.7, 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.& 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.
In reply to the contentions made by the counsel for the respondent No.7, the counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present petition is different to that of the petition pending before the Supreme Court. He further submits that to counter the contentions made by the respondent No.7 in its reply, he needs to file a counter rejoinder.
The State counsel submits that the respondent No.7 had established a 540 MW Power Plant at Village Risda, District Korba, for which an application for change of land use from park, plantation etc to industrial use was preferred before the respondent No.6. The said application was only for change of land use and not for grant of any building permission. In furtherance of the said application preferred by the respondent No.7, the Joint Director, Town and Country, Planning, Raipur vide its letter dated 18.06.2003 directed the Deputy Director, Regional Office, Korba to submit his report, upon which a notice was issued to the respondent No.7 on 24.12.2003 directing it to raise construction only after change of the land use, but no heed was paid by the respondent No.7 and the construction was being done by it.
Thereafter several notices were sent to respondent No.7, but the same were not replied. The respondent No.7 has instead referred Section 30 (5) of the Adhiniyam, 1973 taking a stand that its application was required to be allowed or rejected within the stipulated period, but the said provision unambiguously deals with only deemed grant of permission and does not apply to change of land use. The respondent No.7 was compelled to reply to the notices, upon which it filed reply, but the same being found unsatisfactory, proceedings under the Adhiniyam, 1973 have already been initiated against it for having raised illegal construction and after conclusion of the proceedings, appropriate action would be taken against the respondent No.7 for its illegal act.
The counsel for the respondent No.5 supports the version of the State counsel and submits that since the issue involved in the present case is subjudice before the Supreme Court, the present petition may not be entertained at this stage.
Having considered the rival submissions of the learned 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.
In view of the foregoing discussions and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Bench did 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.