ORDER : 1. Heard. 2. The matter comes upon for consideration of IA NO.2/25 for recalling/modification of the order dated 19.08.2025. 3. This Court vide order dated 19.08.2025 has passed the following directions : “Mr. Vishwajeet Singh, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Distt. Baran, is present before this Court today and informed that he has been appointed as Officer In-charge in the matter only on 19.08.2025. He may file a reply but we direct him to also take steps and conduct an inquiry as to how much encroachment has been done on the river banks and what steps are being taken to remove them. Notice(s) be issued to the encroachers and the encroachments may be removed. If required, the S.D.M may take full police assistance for the said purpose. It is made clear that at least 20 meters from river banks should be left free without there being any construction, so that there is proper safety of the dwellers. A report in this regard shall be filed within a period of four weeks. Personal appearance of the Officer In-charge in future, is exempted. List the matter after four weeks.” 4. Later on, this Court on 07.10.2025 has issued following directions:- “10. It is informed that as per the Rajasthan Township Policy,2024, Clause 3.6, Note (ii), in case a River/Nala is to be channelized, buffer shall be kept as per development plan or minimum of 9 meters whichever is more. 11. In the present case, we have directed for keeping the buffer zone of 20 meters, taking into consideration the flow of the river, we deem it appropriate to continue the buffer zone of 20 meters, as appropriate, for the safety of public at large.” 5. Counsel for the respondents submitted that they are rightful owners of the land situated at Khasra No.1783 and 1782 having valid title deeds issued by the Nagar Palika, Baran in their favour. Counsel for the respondents further submits that so far as the encroachments upon the catchment area is concerned, the same has already been removed by demolishing the shops. 6. Counsel for the respondents has prayed for clarification with regard to the directions issued by this Court for maintaining buffer zone of 20 meters. 7. Counsel for the respondents further submits that so far as the encroachments upon the catchment area is concerned, the same has already been removed by demolishing the shops. 6. Counsel for the respondents has prayed for clarification with regard to the directions issued by this Court for maintaining buffer zone of 20 meters. 7. While drawing attention of this Court to the Rajasthan Township Policy, 2024, Clause 3.6, Note (ii), which provides that in case a River/Nala is to be channelized, buffer shall be kept as per the development plan or minimum of 09 meters whichever is more, counsel for the respondents submitted that the direction with regard to maintaining of a buffer zone of 20 meters shall be clarified while specifying the size of the buffer zone on both the sides of Nala/River. For ready reference Clause 3.6 of the Rajasthan Township Policy, 2024 is quoted herein below: “ 3.6 Provisions for Buffer along Water-bodies Buffer along water bodies, which are not notified under any Act/ statute/Master plan/ Zonal Plan, is proposed to be kept as per following provisions: a) Minimum 30 m from HFL or revenue boundary of rivers whichever is higher. (HFL of river shall be fixed as certified by the Irrigation Department). b) Minimum 30 m from the FTL boundary of Lakes/ Tanks of area 10 ha. And above. c) Minimum 12 m from FTL boundary of Lakes/ Tanks of area 5ha. To 10 ha. d) Minimum 9 m from FTL boundary of Lakes/ Tanks of area less than 5 ha; e) Minimum 9 m from the defined boundary of Canal/Nala/Storm Water Drain of width more than 10 m. f) Minimum 6 m from the defined boundary of Canal/ Nala/ small water bodies/ Storm Water Drain of width up to 10 m. g) Minimum 6 m along all sides from the Step-well. Note: i. In case of single plots, buffer may be kept as setback area where road is not proposed. In case road (minimum 9 m) is planned then the area of road has to be surrendered to ULB. ii. In case River/Nala has been channelized, buffer shall be kept as per development plan or minimum 9 M whichever is more. iii. ULB shall identify and list all the water bodies in notified urban area. In case road (minimum 9 m) is planned then the area of road has to be surrendered to ULB. ii. In case River/Nala has been channelized, buffer shall be kept as per development plan or minimum 9 M whichever is more. iii. ULB shall identify and list all the water bodies in notified urban area. If water bodies belong to water resource department (WRD) then ULB will obtain record of FTL/HFL of such water bodies from WRD. The boundary of rest of the water bodies shall be decided by ULB as per the revenue record or ground situation, whichever is higher and FTL of water body shall be fixed by concerned engineer of ULB not below the rank of Ex. En.” 8. While considering the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the parties and the material available on record, we dispose of the I.A. No. 2/25 and by clarifying the order dated 19.08.2025 and 07.10.2025, it is directed that buffer zone of 20 meters along side River/Nala shall be construed as 10 meters buffer zone on each side of Nala/River. 9. Counsel for the respondents has vehemently objected the maintainability and continuance of the present PIL petition. It is contended that though the present petition is titled as ‘Public Interest Litigation’, however, the same has been filed to settle the personal scores with the respondents. While placing documents on record, it is asserted that as a matter of fact, various cases of civil as well as criminal nature are filed and are sub judice between the parties and the present petition is filed with dilebrate intent/motive to cause irreparable harm to the applicant. It is contended that, the petitioners have willfully neither impleaded the applicant petitioners as party nor have disclosed the fact regarding the litigations pending between the parties. 10. The law with regard to Public Interest Litigation is no more res-integra and it is a settled position that the bona fides of a litigant who approaches the Court through the instrumentality of PIL petition constitute a matter of paramount importance. The Hon’ble Apex Court has repeatedly held that the PIL is a strategic arm of the legal aid movement and intends to bring justice within the reach of poor masses. The Hon’ble Apex Court has repeatedly held that the PIL is a strategic arm of the legal aid movement and intends to bring justice within the reach of poor masses. It is not adversarial in nature, rather it serves as an opportunity to ensure social justice to the vulnerable sections of the society, which is the signature tune of our Constitution. 11. The Hon’ble Courts of law, while encountering some petitions actuated with personal/oblique motives has observed that the jurisprudence of Public Interest Litigation has been carefully and cautiously carved out by the Courts in order to ensure that private or personal disputes are not camouflaged as Public Interest Litigation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2005) 1 SCC 590 while dealing with such petition where the mechanism of Public Interest Litigation was blatantly abused and its true purpose was diluted, observed and held as under : “4. When there is material to show that a petition styled as a public interest litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal disputes, 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 last category. If not properly regulated and abuse averted, it becomes also a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreck vengeance, as well. There must be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and not merely an adventure of 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. Courts of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the extraordinary jurisdiction. 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. 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 The Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary : 1993 CriLJ600 and Kazi Lhendup Dorji v. Central Bureau of Investigation : (1992)ILL J922SC . 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 Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India: AIR 1993 SC 852 andK .R. Srinivas v. R.M. Premchand, : (1994) 6 SCC620 ). ….. 12. 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 armory 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, 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. 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 busy bodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.” 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court has time and again dealt with the issue of misuse of Public Interest Litigation and has held that a litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice, or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief-interim or final. Law in this behalf was settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary , (1992) 4 SCC 305 wherein it was held as under: "98. 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 mere 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." 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court thereafter in the case of Dalip Singh Vs. State of U.P. (2010) 2 SCC 114 while reiterating the said position of law observed and held as under: "2. In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final. …... 24. …... 24. From what we have mentioned above, it is clear that in this case efforts to mislead the authorities and the courts have transmitted through three generations and the conduct of the appellant and his son to mislead the High Court and this Court cannot, but be treated as reprehensible. They belong to the category of persons who not only attempt, but succeed in polluting the course of justice. Therefore, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order under challenge or entertain the appellant's prayer for setting aside the orders passed by the prescribed authority and the appellate authority." 14. Furthermore, a Division Bench of High Court of Delhi in the case of New Rise Foundation Reg. Charitable Trust v. Municipal Corporation Delhi and Ors. W.P. (C) No. 11285/2022 (decided on 29.07.2022) while relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tehseen Poonawalla Vs. Union of India , (2018) 6 SCC 72 held that a person who does not comes with clean hands and suppresses material facts is not entitled for any relief whatsoever. Thus, the practice of approaching the Courts by way of Public Interest Litigation should not be permitted to be abused and in cases where it is pertinent that the facts are not stated candidly, the petition deserves to be dismissed. In Tehseen Poonawalla (supra), it was observed and held as under : "98. The misuse of public interest litigation is a serious matter of concern for the judicial process. Both this Court and the High Courts are flooded with litigations and are burdened by arrears. Frivolous or motivated petitions, ostensibly invoking the public interest detract from the time and attention which courts must devote to genuine causes. This Court has a long list of pending cases where the personal liberty of citizens is involved. Those who await trial or the resolution of appeals against orders of conviction have a legitimate expectation of early justice. It is a travesty of justice for the resources of the legal system to be consumed by an avalanche of misdirected petitions purportedly filed in the public interest which, upon due scrutiny, are found to promote a personal, business or political agenda. This has spawned an industry of vested interests in litigation. It is a travesty of justice for the resources of the legal system to be consumed by an avalanche of misdirected petitions purportedly filed in the public interest which, upon due scrutiny, are found to promote a personal, business or political agenda. This has spawned an industry of vested interests in litigation. There is a grave danger that if this state of affairs is allowed to continue, it would seriously denude the efficacy of the judicial system by detracting from the ability of the court to devote its time and resources to cases which legitimately require attention. Worse still, such petitions pose a grave danger to the credibility of the judicial process. This has the propensity of endangering the credibility of other institutions and undermining public faith in democracy and the rule of law. This will happen when the agency of the court is utilised to settle extra-judicial scores. Business rivalries have to be resolved in a competitive market for goods and services. Political rivalries have to be resolved in the great hall of democracy when the electorate votes its representatives in and out of office. Courts resolve disputes about legal rights and entitlements. Courts protect the rule of law. There is a danger that the judicial process will be reduced to a charade, if disputes beyond the ken of legal parameters occupy the judicial space." 15. In New Rise Foundation case (supra), the High Court of Delhi while relying upon the above stated observation dismissed the petition on account of misuse of the instrument of Public Interest Litigation and imposed a cost on the litigant with a view to deter the litigants from settling their personal disputes through PIL. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is reproduced as under: “21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has shown concern about misuse of Public Interest Litigation and has also shown concern about the large number of Public Interest Litigations which have flooded the High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that personal scores, personal disputes and political rivalries should not be resolved through PIL. 22. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that personal scores, personal disputes and political rivalries should not be resolved through PIL. 22. In the considered opinion of this Court, the present petition is nothing but a sheer abuse of the process of law and therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed at admission stage itself with costs of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) to be paid to the Army War Widows Fund within a period of 30 days from today.” 16. In view of the settled position of law, the ‘Private Interest Litigation’ cannot be permitted to be converted into ‘Public Interest Litigation’. The petitioners thus cannot be allowed to pursue their personal vendetta by way of present PIL. 17. So far as the issue regarding setting apart and maintaining the buffer zone along side the Nala and River is concerned, we have already clarified that 10 meters buffer zone on each side of Nala/river shall be maintained and shall be kept free from any constructions. However, looking to the peculiar facts of the present case where the petitioners have not come with clean hands, we would not like to allow the petitioners to take up their personal vengeance by way of this PIL any further. 18. The petitioners have not come with clean hands and clean objective, before this Court. The concealment of material facts is writ large in the present case. It has clearly come on record that the petitioners have concealed the relevant materials/information regarding pendency of the civil and criminal litigations between them and the dwellers of the area. Therefore, we close the proceedings of the present PIL while imposing cost upon the petitioners. The cost of Rs. 50,000/- as already deposited by the petitioners shall be forfeited and all the petitioners are further directed to deposit additional cost of Rs. 10,000/- each. 19. The necessary directions with regard to setting apart and maintaining the buffer zone along side River/Naala has been given and encroachment upon the catchment area has already been removed, therefore, the purpose of the present PIL stands satisfied. 20. Thus, the PIL proceedings stands closed. 21. All pending application(s) also stand disposed of.