Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1007 (RAJ)

Bardiya Colony Vikas Samiti v. State of Rajasthan

2009-04-13

MAHESH BHAGWATI, R.C.GANDHI

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. - The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 27.2.2009 rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13505/2008 whereby the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of non-maintainability as the appellants had no locus standi to file the same. 2. The nub of the chequred history of this case is that one S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 681/1988 was filed by Mr. Ramchandra Kasliwal in public interest for restoring the original grandeur of "Ram Niwas Garden" by stopping thoroughfare vehicular traffic, removing encroachments of RSEB, PHED, NCC etc., re-settling the chatwallas and khomchawallas outside the garden and banning Circus, Public meetings and Kavi Sammelans inside the garden. This Public Interest Litigation was decided on 2.3.1993 with numerous observations and guidelines issued to the State Government. Thereafter, many writ petitions and revision petitions, as a fall out of original Public Interest Litigation came to be instituted from time to time and they were all adjudicated by this Court. The appellants assailed the decision of the Government taken by a Committee in the meeting held on 18.06.2008 with regard to rehabilitating the chatwallas and khomchawallas at the eastern side of Albert Hall known as 'Wonder Land'. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has canvassed that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the judgments and orders arising out of the main Public Interest Litigation and dismissed the writ petition on the ground of maintainability. The learned counsel has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned judgment dated 27.2.2009 and remit the matter to the Single Bench for its decision on merits. 4. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and carefully scanned the relevant material on record, it is noticed that in writ petition No. 3220/2007, the Single Bench passed an interim order on 28.5.2008 directing the State Government to implement the rehabilitation scheme as a temporary measure during its pendency. In compliance of this order the Committee constituted by the Government formulated a rehabilitation scheme which was taken note of by the learned Single Judge and the writ petition was accordingly disposed of. It is also noticed that the appellants were not party in this said writ petition No. 3220/2007. In compliance of this order the Committee constituted by the Government formulated a rehabilitation scheme which was taken note of by the learned Single Judge and the writ petition was accordingly disposed of. It is also noticed that the appellants were not party in this said writ petition No. 3220/2007. The learned Single Judge has observed in the impugned judgment that once the rehabilitation scheme prepared by the State Government has been taken note of and approved by the learned Single Judge, the appellants had no locus standi to question the said scheme. 5. It is found that the journey of this litigation under the garb of Public Interest Litigation commenced way back in the year 1988. Thereafter, having travelled for more than two decades, it has yet not come to an end. It has given rise to many off shoots. The appellants filed a fresh writ petition assailing the decision of the committee which formulated a scheme in compliance of the orders of the court. It is pertinent to insist upon that a heavy duty is cast upon the constitutional courts to protect themselves from the onslaught unleashed by unscrupulous litigants masquerading as Public Interest Litigants. The growing tendency of needless intrusion by strangers and busybodies in the functioning of the judiciary under the garb of Public Interest Litigation has not slowed down, inspite of intermittent caution pronounced aloud by the Apex Court in umpteen cases while extending concept of locus standi of the petitioners, especially in Public Interest Litigations.To protect the interest of an elite class is not the object of Public Interest Litigation. It cannot be forgotten that it is not within the domain of the courts to discharge the administrative functions. The object of Public Interest Litigation is to redress the genuine Public wrong or public injury. No private person can be allowed to abuse the process of law to enrich their narrow and confined interests. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that appellants had no locus standi to file the writ petition. The impugned judgment is found to be just and proper and the same does not call for any intervention. 6. For these reasons, the special appeal being bereft of any merit deserves to be dismissed and thus, stands dismissed accordingly.Appeal Dismissed. *******