The Rajasthan High Court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL)  filed in pro-bono capacity that village forest area has been extensively encroached by a large number of encroachers.

Against them, proceedings under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act have duly been drawn by Tehsildar and after hearing, orders of eviction were passed against the encroachers on 02.09.2022 and 08.09.2022.  

It is also empathetically asserted that to the best knowledge of the petitioner, the encroachers have not taken any remedy against the orders passed by the Tehsildar and therefore, those orders have attained finality. Even then, the respondent authorities particularly, the Tehsildar is not taking appropriate steps for removal of encroachments, which leads to inference that those who have occupied village forest area as encroachers are influential personalities and are not allowing the revenue authorities to remove the encroachments despite there being statutory orders of eviction.

Additional Advocate General, Rajesh Panwar appearing for the State would submit that if the orders passed by the Tehsildar in proceedings under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act have attained finality, the orders are required to be brought to its original conclusion. He would, however, lodge a caveat that in case, those orders have been challenged in appeal or in any other proceedings and any interim order has been passed, then in that case, the respondent authorities may not proceed further.   

Be that as it may, on the face of the empathetic assertion made by learned counsel for the petitioner in this PIL on affidavit that the orders passed by the Tehsildar under the provision of Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act on 02.09.2022 and 08.09.2022 have attained finality and till date, encroachments have not been removed, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and  Justice Munnuri Laxman  directed  the District Collector, Bikaner to look into the matter. He shall collect necessary information from Tehsildar, Shri Kolayat (Sub Tehsil Hadan) and if it is found that against the eviction orders, no order of stay of any higher authority is submitted in the office of Tehsildar, the Collector shall issue directions for instant removal of the encroachments without further loss of time. 

If the encroachments  are not removed within a period of three months, the petitioner would be at liberty to revive the petition, the Bench ordered.

The Rajasthan High Court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed  raising concern with regard to insufficiency in the cadre strength of Magistrates.

The PIL has been filed by one Tara Chand Sharma.

The Petitioner in person submitted that second class Magistrate are not available which is resulting in delay in disposal of cases.

The petitioner seeks direction for increasing number of Courts and Judicial Officers/Magistrates. 

While considering the PIL, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and  Justice Bhuwan Goyal observed that this is a policy matter which is required to be considered by the appropriate authority.  

The petition is accordingly disposed of by the High Court with liberty to the Petitioner to file representation to the State Government and other concerned authorities.

The Rajasthan high Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking direction to the respondents to register First Information reports immediately as and when a citizen approach to nearest police station under Sec. 154 (1) Cr.P.C. and after proper investigation result of the same may be produced before concerned court of law.

The petitioner in person submits that the law requires the incharge of the Police Station to ensure registration of the FIR immediately as and when citizen approaches the nearest Police Station 154(1) Cr.P.C after proper investigation.

The petitioner during argument admits that he is personally aggrieved as he had also lodged FIR at Police Station, Kotwali Sirohi but the FIR was not registered, therefore, he filed petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and that petition has been disposed of on 18.03.2024 with liberty to file application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C before the Magistrate.

“This petition is completely devoid of merit. A petition of general nature has been filed by the petitioner without clearly stating any particular case”, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Munnuri Laxman noted.

The Court also find that the petitioner is a person who otherwise is personally aggrieved because in his case FIR was not registered against which he has already taken a remedy in his personal capacity. Therefore, at his instance, PIL cannot be entertained.

The Rajasthan High Court imposed a Cost of Rs. Rs.10,000/- on the Petitioner and dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed with a prayer for amendment in the Constitution to remove certain words by substituting appropriate words.

The PIL has been filed by Girdhar Lal Acharya  (Aged About 90 Years) with one other.

The petitioner has come out with a prayer for amendment in the Constitution to remove certain words by substituting appropriate words as, according to the understanding of the petitioners, those words are not appropriate with reference to the high constitutional functionaries.   

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Munnuri Laxman observed, “This petition is frivolous as it could be”. 

The Court finds that no case is made out for entertaining this petition. “The petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-.”

The Rajasthan High Court imposed a cost of Rs.25,000/- on the Petitioner and dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed challenging the action of the respondents in constructing of Primary Health Center on the allegation that the construction is being done without permission and sanction.

In the reply filed by the respondents, it is revealed that petitioner had earlier filed a suit seeking injunction against the construction of primary health center at Pilu, Tehsil & District Pratapgarh.

Along with the suit, application for grant of temporary injunction had also been filed and that was rejected vide order dated 02.08.2023. The petitioner thereafter filed the petition without disclosing the said fact.

The petitioner has, thus, personal interest in the case as he has suppressed the fact, while filing the petition, that earlier a suit and application was filed by him and temporary injunction application was rejected by the concerned court. The PIL is frivolous and abuse of process of law, the Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni observed.

“The PIL is dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/- to be payable with the State Legal Service Authority within a period of one month”, the order reads.

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking enrollment of individuals and families of Chittorgarh and Pratapgarh districts, who were earlier excluded from the National Food Security Scheme and denied benefits under new ration cards after getting married and separated from their parents and family.
The PIL has been filed by one Shanti Lal Gurjar.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Kuldeep Mathur held that the relief sought for by way of this PIL cannot be granted in the PIL petition.

It is observed by the Court that it is for the individuals, if they raise grievance for inclusion of their name which may be considered in the appropriate Forum, if they are aggrieved.   

“At the instance of this kind of PIL, no blanket direction can be issued”, the Court said.

The Rajasthan High Court imposed a Cost of Rs.50,000/- on the Petitioner and dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed alleging that in the city of Bikaner several commercial establishments have come up in the periphery control area and such constructions are illegal.

The PIL has been filed by one Rahul Rewar .

The Court earlier issued notice on 02.02.2022.

In this case, on 10.10.2022 the High Court after going though the petition has found that no details regarding the illegal commercial establishments nor the names of the persons who allegedly raised the illegal construction have been mentioned in the writ petition.

Therefore, the Court was of the opinion that the petition lacks material particulars. At that stage, a prayer was made by the counsel for the petitioner for grant of time to furnish details.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Kuldeep noted that there is nothing on record to show that the order has been complied with. The petitioner has abused the process of law and has wasted the time of the writ court by engaging in a frivolous petition. Without any material details and particulars, this PIL has been filed.

“Considering above, we are inclined to dismiss this petition.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.50,000/- which shall be deposited in the registry of the High Court within a period of 30 days, failing which appropriate recovery proceedings will be drawn against the petitioner”, the order reads.

The Rajasthan High Court has held that the Go Palan department to consider constituting a team of experts to find out whether a better system for water supply can be put in place, subject to availability of funds. The High Court said it expected that the report of the committee of experts will be examined by the State and improvement may be brought about to ensure a better water supply system.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Kuldeep Mathur disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) preferred by the petitioner (Gogram Sewa Sangh Rajasthan) who claims to be a public spirited person to espouse the cause in the matter of better management and maintenance of gaushalas in Rajasthan.

The issue raised is with regard to providing appropriate funds to gaushalas, development of necessary infrastructure, supply of water etc. The relief sought in the petition is as follows:-

“(a) That by an appropriate writ direction the State of Rajasthan may kindly be directed to provide the assistance of food, grass and water to all the cattles of the state specially the cattle living with the 3000 goshalas within the State of Rajasthan, the respondents may also kindly be directed to release the immediate reliefs to the cattle and provide the grass/food (dry/green) looking to the disaster situation in the State of Rajasthan.

(b) That by an appropriate writ, direction and direction the State Government further directs to frame a scheme for proper disbursement of the grant of assistance to all the goshalas and agriculturist of the State of Rajasthan.

(c) That by an appropriate writ direction or order the State of Rajasthan may kindly be directed to declare the relief package looking to the situation of Disaster in the State for saving the life of the cattles (cows, calf, buffalos and other milk producer cattle) and the appropriate fund/goods may kindly be provide/arrange for saving the life cattle.

(d) That any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, by which the petitioners may get full justice may also be allowed.”

Having taken cognizance of the issue raised in this petition, the Court directed the respondents-State to file their affidavit and apprise the Court regarding the schemes undertaken by the State to provide necessary financial assistance, development of infrastructure and various facilities including water supply system.

In response to the order passed by the Court, the respondents have filed more than one affidavit. From these affidavits, the Court noted that the State has taken measures regarding developing and maintaining necessary eco-system for maintenance of various gaushalas. Various facts and figures have been stated in the affidavits. The gist of these affidavits on relevant aspects of the matter can be summarized as below:

“(1) Rs.625 Crores have been disbursed to the Gaushalas by way of grant in aid.

(2) Taking into consideration recent rising price of fodder, decision has been taken to provide grant to Goshalas from six months(180 days) to nine months(270 days).

(3) Use of animal fodder for making bricks and carboards have been prohibited by the State Government and vide letter dated 02.05.2022, all the District Collectors have been directed to implement the prohibitory directions.

(4) Directions have been issued to all the District Collectors to make purchase of sileage fodder which is more nutritious than regular fodder and is available at the price of Rs.700 per quintal.

(5) Government has decided to establish fodder depot in the districts which are not hit by disaster situation in pursuance thereof, the District Collectors have been directed to allot Rs. 10 lakhs for the said purpose.

(6) In respect to the Tehsils which are located in the districts hit by disaster situation but not affected by drought, similar arrangements have been directed to be maintained.

(7) The Director, Gopalan Department vide letter dated 31.05.2022 wrote to all Joint Directors directing to provide one tanker of water, as directed earlier by this Court. Directions in this regard has also been issued by the Secretary, Gopalan Department on 08.07.2022 to all the District Collectors to ensure water supply as per the directions of this Court.

(8) Till 31.03.2022, a total of Rs.2176 Crore 7 Lakhs have been spent on various schemes for the development of Gaushalas, Nandishalas, Biogas Schemes etc. In total, 2208 Gaushalas applied online for grant of aid out of which administrative sanction to the tune of Rs.341.10 crore has been made to 2176 Gaushalas and financial sanction to the tune of Rs.327.27 crore have been made to 2058 Gaushalas and a total amount of Rs.294.40 crore has been paid to 1888 Gaushalas.”

The Counsel appearing for the petitioner highlighted that the State receives huge funds from Cow Cess and the entire fund needs to be utilized in such a manner that apart from development of infrastructures, a robust water supply system is also developed.

Responding to the said submission, the counsel for the State submitted that a different response is ensured depending upon the situation. He would further submit that in drought situations, measures are taken to ensure that water supply is not disturbed. In a normal situation also, he would submit that the scarcity of water is not as has been projected in this petition. He would refer to the letter dated 08.07.2022 filed alongwith the affidavit to submit that in the month of July, scarcity of water, as such, was not reported.

“Ideally speaking, for all, including the animals, availability of water is a must. As to how this has to be ensured, is essentially in the realm of the administrative function,” the Bench said.

The Court held that Counsel for the petitioner is quite correct in submitting that there should be a proper developed system for uninterrupted water supply in all the gaushalas. This, however, would require the State to frame a proper plan and also to make available necessary funds. This needs to be examined by the concerned authorities of the State as to how a better system for supply of water to various eligible gaushalas can be developed. “We would only say that there is always a scope for improvement in the existing system and water supply cannot be treated as the end of the duties and functions on the part of the authorities.”

It is observed by the High Court that under all circumstances, a drought situation needs to be properly dealt with and the water supply to all eligible gaushalas through one or the other mode, including the tanker, is ensured.

The Rajasthan High Court imposed a Cost of Rs.50,000/- on the Petitioner and dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking issuance of prohibitory orders not to grant patta in favour of private respondent.

Having gone through the petition, the Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Kuldeep Mathur Found that there is a chequred history and several suits have also been filed in the matter of alleged encroachment.

The Bench noted that the private respondent has moved an application for grant of patta. There is nothing on record to show that any decision has been taken one way or the other to grant or not to grant the patta.

PILs are being filed without proper search and with oblique motive even though no order has been passed by the Municipal Corporation granting patta in favour of private respondent. The petitioners, in the garb of Public Interest Litigation, has filed this petition. This PIL is completely frivolous and misuse and abuse of the process of law , the Bench observed.

“Thus, the instant PIL is dismissed with a cost to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the petitioner within a period of one month failing which, appropriate proceedings shall be drawn by the Registry against the petitioner for recovery”, the order reads.

The Rajasthan High Court directed the Mining Engineer, Department of Mines and Geology, Amet, District Rajsamand to hold an inquiry on the complaint made by the petitioners regarding alleged illegality in grant of lease.

The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Kuldeep Mathur disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed complaining that the leases have been granted in prohibited area in violation of provisions contained in the then existing Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (now substituted by the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017).

It is submitted that the leases, which are challenged before the Court, are not granted recently but long back 10 years before the date of filing of the writ petition. The direction passed by this Court to hold an inquiry in the complaint shall be examined by the competent authorities of the department and decision would be taken in the matter one way or the other at the earliest.

Further petitioner contended that three months’ time may be granted to get the complaint examined and the decision to be taken.

Considering the submission of the State Counsel, the Court did not inclined to keep this PIL pending but to dispose of the same with the direction to the Mining Engineer, Department of Mines and Geology, Amet, District Rajsamand to hold an inquiry on the complaint made by the petitioners regarding alleged illegality in grant of lease. He shall decide the complaint after hearing private respondents preferably within three months , the Court directed.