Dismissed¶¶43

Janman Utthan Samiti Balco Nagar Korba v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC17 Jul 2024WPC/3121/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintainability of writ petition; locus standi; petition by recently registered society (7 members) versus aggrieved persons; public interest litigation dismissed for want of public interest; Article 226 jurisdiction; Societies Registration Act registration; rehabilitation and resettlement of 99 affected families; BALCO Korba cooling tower land acquisition; Shanti Nagar Punarwas Samiti WP(PIL) 57/2022; SLP disposal dated 20.10.2023; undertaking dated 17.3.2023; SDO Revenue Korba order 27.2.2024; High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur; Justice Parth Prateem Sahu; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The present writ petition is not filed by the same society (Shanti Nagar Punarwas Samiti), nor by any member of that society, nor by any other affected person in individual capacity. ¶¶36

Janman Utthan Samiti Balco Nagar Korba Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition is maintainable in its present form, having been filed by a society (registered April 2024 with 7 members) rather than by the aggrieved/affected persons themselves. +1 more

¶¶28

Court's answer

The present writ petition is not filed by the same society (Shanti Nagar Punarwas Samiti), nor by any member of that society, nor by any other affected person in individual capacity.

¶¶36

Ratio / Principle

The document filed with the preliminary objection by respondent No.4 shows the strength of the petitioner society to be 07 members only, as supplied on 25.6.2024.

¶¶40

Key takeaways

Since Annexure-R/4-A was not controverted by appropriate proceedings or production of any other document, the submission that the petitioner society has 07 + 99 members could not be accepted.ratio¶¶41
As the aggrieved person has not approached the Court for redressal of the grievance, the writ petition in its present form is not maintainable.ratio¶¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (WPC No. 3121 of 2024, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur; Parth Prateem Sahu, J.; decision 18/07/2024) — Janman Utthan Samiti Balco Nagar Korba, a society registered on 3.4.2024, sought directions to the Collector, Korba for survey of the remaining 99 affected families of the Coal Siding/Coal Yard and 1200 M.W. and 540 M.W. Power Plant of BALCO and for their rehabilitation and resettlement in light of the SDO (Revenue), Korba order dated 27.2.2024. Respondent No.4 (BALCO) raised a preliminary objection to maintainability. HELD: (i) the earlier identical grievance was raised in WP(PIL) No.57/2022 by Shanti Nagar Punarwas Samiti, which the Division Bench dismissed on 31.7.2023 holding the petitioners had no locus and no public interest was involved; the SLP thereagainst was disposed of by the Supreme Court on 20.10.2023 leaving aggrieved persons free to move the appropriate forum; (ii) the present petition is filed neither by that society, nor by its member, nor by any affected person in individual capacity; (iii) the society consists of only 07 members per the Registrar's record supplied on 25.6.2024, and the claim that 99 members were later added was unsubstantiated, Annexure-R/4-A being uncontroverted. As the aggrieved person has not approached the Court, the writ petition in its present form is not maintainable and is dismissed.

¶1

Page No.1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPC No. 3121 of 2024

¶5

Janman Utthan Samiti Balco Nagar Korba District- Korba ( C.G.) (A Society Registration Under The Society Registration Act)through- Its President Nikhil Mittal R/o. Ring Road Ward No. 35 Balco, P.S. Balco Nagar, Tehsil And District- Korba ( C.G.).

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

1-State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Industries And Commerce, Government Of Chhattistgarh Mahanadi Bhawan,NayaRaipur,(C.G.)

¶9

2 - The Collector, Korba Collectorate Korba ItI Korba District- Korba (C.G.)

¶10

3-TheDeputy Director Industrial Health & Safety Korba, DistrictKorba(C.G.)

¶11

4-The Chief Executive Officer Bharat Aluminum Company Limited(Balco)District-Korba(C.G.).

¶12

5-The Upper Collector Korba District- Korba(C.G.).

¶13

6-The Sub- Divisional Officer,(Revenue)Korba,District- Korba(C.G.). 7 - The Tehsildar Korba, District-Korba (C.G.).

¶14

---- Respondents

¶15

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Petitioner :Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Advocate. For State :Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, Govt. Advocate. For respondent No.4 : Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate.

¶16

S.B.:Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board

¶17

18/07/2024

¶18

Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

¶19

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the case of the petitioners for kind perusal.

¶20

10.2 The Hon’ble Court may further kindly be pleased to issue appropriate

¶21

Page No.2

¶22

writ/orders/direction and to direct the respondent authorities particularly the respondent No.2 Collector Korba to take immediate action for proper survey of 99 families.

¶23

10.3 The Hon’ble Court may also kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 Collector Korba to conduct survey of Coal Siding/Coal Yard 1200 M.W. and 540 M.W. Power Plant of the remaining affected 99 families in light of order passed by SDO Revenue Korba dated 27.2.2024 and for their proper rehabilitation and resettlement.

¶24

10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.”

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a society registered under the CG Societies Registration Act, 1860, which is registered on 3.4.2024. In the year 2010, respondent/ BALCO started raising construction for erection of cooling tower in Shanti Nagar area and for this purpose, the land of residents of Shanti Nagar was acquired. According to agreement entered into between the residents of Shanti Nagar as also respondent/Balco, the residents were required to be rehabilitated apart from making payment of compensation. However, when rehabilitation was not done, one society, namely Shanti Nagar Punarwas Samiti filed WP(PIL) 57/2022 and pursuant to said proceedings, 87 families were rehabilitated. He contended that when objections were raised

¶26

Page No.3

¶27

by other families residing within the same area including the members of petitioner society, respondent/Balco has given an undertaking on 17.3.2023 that other affected families residing in Shanti Nagar, apart from said 87 families, will also be considered for rehabilitation. However, till date, no steps have been taken to rehabilitate the members of the petitioner/ society, therefore, this writ petition is filed.

¶28

Mr. Abhishek Sinha, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of respondent No.4 submits that he has filed preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of writ petition in its present form. The person aggrieved is not before this Court as petitioner and writ petition is filed by one society stated to be registered under the Societies Registration Act. He contended that when after getting the advance copy, respondent No.4 verified regarding status of petitioner society, it revealed that petitioner society is registered in the month of April, 2024 with only 7 members. There are no other members named in the record of the Registrar, Firms and Societies, according to the certified copy obtained from concerned office on 25.6.2024. He submits that some persons for the purpose of their personal benefit are creating unrest within the working place of the respondent No.4 and one of them is Mr. Dilendra Yadav, whose name is also reflecting in the inquiry report placed in record at Page-17. He submits that earlier one another society has filed Public Interest Litigation bearing WP(PIL)No.57/2022, raising the grievance of rehabilitation of the affected persons which was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court vide order

¶29

Page No.4

¶30

dated 31.7.2023, observing that writ petition is not maintainable as no public interest is involved. The order passed by the Division Bench was put to challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of filing SLP which also came to be disposed of vide order dated 20.10.2023. In the said order Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that petitioner or any member of the society may file appropriate proceedings before appropriate forum if their grievance still subsists. However, the said society is not the petitioner herein nor the writ petition is filed by any individual affected person. The persons who are actually affected and with whom the agreement was entered into, the respondent No.4 has already rehabilitated them, therefore, they are not before this Court.

¶31

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings made in the writ petition and also preliminary objection along with the document enclosed in support of the writ petition.

¶32

Perusal of the order passed in WP(PIL) No.57/2022 dated 31.7.2023 would show that said writ petition(PIL) was filed by Shanti Nagar Puranrwas Samiti and the Division Bench of High Court has observed as under:-

¶33

“8.In view of the foregoing discussions and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we 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. Today this Court has already dismissed a similar petition (WP(PIL) No.87/2020) filed by the

¶34

Page No.5

¶35

petitioner holding that it lacks the elements of public interest. Thus, the instant writ petition styled as public interest litigation filed by the petitioner is a vague petition. We are not satisfied that this is a genuine petition filed in public interest so as to invoke the jurisdiction in the public interest under Article 226 of the Constitution.”

¶36

In the aforementioned order the Court has clearly observed that the Court did not find any locus of petitioner in that matter and to show any incident in which the public interest has been violated. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. The order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is placed on record as Annexure-P/8 and a glance of which would also show that SLP was also dismissed, however, there was an observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that if grievance of any member or the society therein subsists, the order passed by Division Bench will not come in the way for adjudication of their grievance. Present writ petition is not filed by the same society i.e. Shanti Nagar Punarwas Samiti or by any member of said society or any other affected person in individual capacity.

¶37

It appears that after passing of the order by Hon’ble Supreme Court, a group of persons, as is reflecting from Annexure-R/4A, which are 07 in number, have formed a new society in the name and style of Janman Utthan Samiti Balco Nagar Korba. Learned counsel for petitioner made an attempt to make a submission that though the society was initially registered with 07 members, however, later on in the proceedings of the society, 99 members were subsequently

¶38

Page No.6

¶39

added as member of the society, but, upon asking, whether name of 99 members is also registered in the office of Registrar, Firms and Societies, he submits that no such document is available with him. However, for perusal of this Court he placed the proceedings recorded by the society on 6.3.2024.

¶40

On the contrary, the document which is placed on record along with preliminary objection by respondent No.4 would show the strength of members of the society to be 07 only, which was supplied to the respondent No.4 on 25.6.2024.

¶41

In the above facts of the case, more so when the document Annexure-R/4-A is not controverted by filing appropriate proceedings and producing any other document, submission of counsel for petitioner could not be accepted that the petitioner is the society with 07 + 99 members.

¶42

10.As the aggrieved person has not approached this Court for redressal of his grievance, writ petition in its present form, in the opinion of this Court, would not be maintainable.

¶43

11.Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.

¶44

Nisha

¶45

( Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
In 2010, respondent BALCO started construction for erection of a cooling tower in Shanti Nagar area, for which the land of residents of Shanti Nagar was acquired.¶¶25
Prior proceeding
Rehabilitation not having been done, Shanti Nagar Punarwas Samiti filed WP(PIL) 57/2022; pursuant to those proceedings, 87 families were rehabilitated.¶¶25
Prior proceeding
On objections by other families in the same area, BALCO gave an undertaking on 17.3.2023 that other affected families apart from the 87 would also be considered for rehabilitation; according to counsel, no steps were taken thereafter.¶¶27
Prior proceeding
Petitioner society registered on 3.4.2024 under the CG Societies Registration Act, 1860, as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner.¶¶25
Prior proceeding
Earlier PIL bearing WP(PIL)No.57/2022, filed by Shanti Nagar Punarwas Samiti raising the grievance of rehabilitation, was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.7.2023, observing that the writ petition was not maintainable as no public interest was involved.¶¶30
Prior proceeding
In the PIL order, the Division Bench found no locus of the petitioner therein and no violation of public interest; the petition styled as PIL was held vague and not a genuine petition in public interest under Article 226.¶¶33
Prior proceeding
The Division Bench order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by SLP, which was disposed of vide order dated 20.10.2023, with the observation that the petitioner or any member of the society may file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum if the grievance subsists (order on record as Annexure-P/8).¶¶30
Prior proceeding
After the Supreme Court order, a group of 07 persons (Annexure-R/4A) formed the new society Janman Utthan Samiti Balco Nagar Korba; respondent No.4's record (supplied 25.6.2024) showed the society's membership as 07 only, and the plea of subsequent addition of 99 members was not substantiated.¶¶37

Janman Utthan Samiti Balco Nagar Korba v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Janman Utthan Samiti Balco Nagar Korba v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Dhruv Vs Government of India

Dashrath Kunjam Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Ramji Singh Ravi @ Ramkumar Ravi Vs Assistant Engineer, Cspdcl

Satwan Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Savita Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chandrashekhar Vaishnav Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited