The Gujarat High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed raising a cause of residents of District Narmada, Bharuch and Vadodara, who according to the petitioner had been badly affected on account of release of water from Narmada dam, which has caused flood in certain areas.
The petitioner is a resident of the city of Ahmedabad and claims to be a Social Worker and RTI Activist. The contention of the petitioner in the petition is that the compensation and relief package announced by the State Government to the victims and affected persons of the flood, in the month of September, 2023 is insufficient.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee observed that there is nothing on record which would indicate as to how the petitioner could gather the information with respect to the compensation and relief package provided by the State Government. There is no detail in the petition as to who are those persons who conveyed their grievances to the petitioner to raise this before us in the nature of Public Interest Litigation.
“The present Public Interest Litigation which has been filed with incomplete statements with regard to the grievance of the flood affected victims, at the instance of the present petitioner who claims to be RTI Activist cannot be entertained. Even otherwise, we may note that there is no detail as to what kind of social work had been conducted by the petitioner for the cause of the victims of flood affected area. At last, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a direction be given to the respondents to consider the representation filed by the petitioner raising grievances of victims of the flood affected area.”
The Bench noted that the Public Interest Litigation is a jurisdiction which is created with judicial pronouncements to espouse the cause of the downtrodden, the people who are not in a position to agitate their voices. However, the jurisdiction of the court in the nature of Public Interest Litigation cannot be used by a person like the present petitioner seeking a mandamus commanding the respondents to consider his representation, like any other ordinary writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
As the petitioner has not been able to convince the Court that he is a public spirited person and is raising the genuine cause of victims of the flood affected area of District Narmada, Bharuch and Vadodara, the Bench finds the prayers made by the petitioner as misconceived.