The Chhattisgarh High Court disposed of a Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation (PIL) registered on two counts firstly the lineman has taken illegal gratification at about Rs.14,400/- for installation of new transformer at village Mahadevpur Block Ramchandrapur District Balrampur (C.G.) and the other news published in the same newspaper relating to death of four cattles due to electricution and the incidents which took place earlier.

In compliance of the order passed by the Court on 12.04.2024, two separate reply and affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents for two separate news items. The operative portions of the First reply read as follows :  

“…..

2. That, so far as the first news/ground is concerned one ……. has taken the amount of Rs.300/- from the villagers instead of the employees belonging to the department of answering respondent and to that effect a written complaint was made before jurisdictional police authorities on dated 09.04.24 whereby the concerning police authority i.e. P.S. Trikunda District Balrampur has after examination of the complaint and recording the statement of the responsible officer as well as the concerned person ……. has closed the complaint under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. by stating that matter is relating to transaction of money therefore it would be proper to approach the jurisdictional court…..

3. That, on the basis of complaint made by the Department of answering respondent the concerning police authorities has recorded the statement of the witnesses, whereby …. has admitted that he has received the amount for the purposes of changing new transformer and after lodging the complaint by the Department of answering respondent he has returned the entire amount to the persons from whom he had received the amount. 

4. That, as per the supply code of the department in urban area if any transformer is non working then within a period of three days same has to be replaced and in rural area the prescribed period for replacing the transformer is seven days, the answering respondents have replaced the transformer after receiving the complaint within the prescribed period i.e. within seven days on 09.04.2024, therefore no negligence has been committed on the part of answering respondent and to that effect a panchnama has been made and gram panchayat Mahadevpur has already certified the replacement of the transformer on dated 09.04.2024……

5. That, the answering respondents hereby prays unconditional apology if any mistake has been committed on their part and ready and willing to comply the directions issued by this Hon’ble Court. 

6. That, in view of the above submissions and documents filed by the answering respondent, there is no negligence on the part of answering respondents.”

Second Reply;-

“….

 2. That, as per the newsclipping the similar incidents has taken place earlier also but as per knowledge of the answering respondent no such incident has ever taken place except death of one person for which no claim has been ever made till date. 

3. That, the electric line of 11 KV at Loharsi feeder runs for approx. 25 to 30 kms in the forest area and due to heavy storm the insulator was blast due to which the electric wire fell down and the cattles got electricuted and died. …. 

4. That, when this fact came into the knowledge of answering respondents they immediately proceeded for disbursement of the just and proper compensation as per the guidelines of the department and has issued cheques in favour of the owners of cattles and the owners have already given receipts for the same. ….

5. That, this is the responsibility of the answering respondents to maintain electricity lines after periodical interval and the answering respondents have time and again complied their part as the maintenance took place on dated 05.01.22, 05.05.23, 08.05.23 and 28.10.23, therefore no negligence on the part of answering respondents has been done. 

6. That, the answering respondents hereby prays unconditional apology if any mistake has been committed on their part and ready and willing to comply the directions issued by this Hon’ble Court. 

7. That, in view of the above submissions and documents filed by the answering respondent, there is no negligence on the part of answering respondents.”

In the light of reply supported by affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents , the Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha  and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput  disposed of the Petition.

The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking direction to the respondent authorities for conducting the State Eligibility Test Examination for subject Earth Science (Geology) and similar subjects which is required in the State of Chhattisgarh.

The PIL further seeks direction to the respondent authorities to amend the notification by adding subject Earth Science (Geology) and alike other subjects also for examination of State Eligibility Test in the year-2024.

At the very outset, a preliminary objection has been raised by the  State Counsel regarding maintainability of the  petition in the form of public interest litigation as  the petition itself, the petitioner states that all the petitioners are qualified persons for higher education due to lack of clearance of SET examination, they are being deprived from getting job in concerned subject, therefore, the petitioners have their personal interest in this petition, hence, the same cannot be termed as public interest litigation.  

Chandrabhushan Kesharwani, counsel for the petitioner, submits that the interests of the petitioner are only to the extent that they are students of Earth Science.  

In view of the above, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice  Ravindra Kumar Agrawal dismissed  the public interest litigation as not maintainable. However, the Court leaves it open for the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy available in law.

The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking direction to the respondents to protect people of one community for performing their religious duties.

The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that some fundamentalist organizations are attacking a particular society (Muslim community) and this attack is a kind of mob lynching and the petitioner Committee had made several complaints before various authorities for taking action against guilty persons that were part of mob lynching, but no action has been taken against those who disturb the peace and order.  

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice  Ravindra Kumar Agrawal held that the Courts should, prima facie, verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL. It is also well settled that the Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation. 

“The Courts should ensure the jurisdiction in public interest is invoked for genuine purposes by persons who have bona fide credentials and who do not seek to espouse or pursue any extraneous object. Otherwise, the jurisdiction in public interest can become a source of misuse by private persons seeking to pursue their own vested interests”.

Considering the prayers and pleadings made in the writ petition which is styled as Public Interest Litigation, the Court was 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. No specific date or time of any incident has been mentioned and further the present petition is a sketchy one and appears to be filed for personal gain and publicity.

The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking direction to the respondents for quashing and setting aside the ‘Shri Ramlala Darshan (Ayodhya Dham) Scheme.

Challenge in this petition is to the Cabinet meeting decision dated 10.01.2024 alongwith the ‘Shri Ramlala Darshan (Ayodhya Dham) Scheme which provides for free Pilgrimage to Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, the expenditure on which is to be borne by State exchequer. The impugned Cabinet meeting decision dated 10.01.2024 alongwith the Scheme have been challenged on the ground that they violate the tenet of secularism which is an integral part of the basic structure of our Constitution and democracy. 

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice  Ravindra Kumar Agrawal  held that the Courts should, prima facie, verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL. It is also well settled that the Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation. The Courts should ensure the jurisdiction in public interest is invoked for genuine purposes by persons who have bona fide credentials and who do not seek to espouse or pursue any extraneous object. Otherwise, the jurisdiction in public interest can become a source of misuse by private persons seeking to pursue their own vested interests.

From perusal of the records, the Court noted that the Scheme which is under challenge is a policy decision of the State Government as even before coming into power, the ruling party in its manifesto had promised the domicile of Chhattisgarh for taking them to Ayodhya for pilgrimage. The Scheme is basically for the poor people and is open to all. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the Scheme prohibits or bars the people of faith other than the Hindus to participate or avail the benefit of the said Scheme. Furthermore, how the Scheme would cause any harm to the secular structure of the State has also not been explained. 

The petitioner himself had been a political person associated earlier with political parties  and this petition appears to the Court as nothing but an attempt to gain some personal/political mileage, though the petitioner claims that at present he is not associated with any political party. Even otherwise, it is well settled that a policy decision of the State can normally be not interfered with, the Court further noted.

The decision relied on by the counsel for the petitioner on the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras (supra) and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Satish Agrawal (supra) are distinguishable on facts. The Scheme in the present case is open to all the domicile of State of Chhattisgarh and not   limited or restricted to a particular religion and as such, the same is distinguishable on facts and not applicable to the present case. In Satish Agrawal (supra) GOMs No. 29, dated 21.07.2008 was challenged which related to operationalise the scheme for assistance to Christian pilgrimage by deploying the budgeted amount of Rs. 2 Crores. In the said case, the scheme was solely for the people of Christian faith and not open to the general public of all faiths.

The case relied on by the counsel for the petitioner on Federation of Railway Officers Association (supra) itself is contrary to his arguments as the Supreme Court, in paragraph 12 of the has observed as under:  

“12. In examining a question of this nature where a policy is evolved by the Government judicial review thereof is limited. When policy according to which or the purpose for which discretion is to be exercised is clearly expressed in the statute, it cannot be said to be an unrestricted discretion. On matters affecting policy and requiring technical expertise Court would leave the matter for decision of those who are qualified to address the issues. Unless the policy or action is inconsistent with the Constitution and the laws or arbitrary or irrational or abuse of the power, the Court will not interfere with such matters. ”  

Further, the Supreme Court in Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam (supra), has observed as under:

“114. The question of locus standi in the matter of awarding the contract has been considered by this Court in BALCO Employees’ Union (Regd.) vs. Union of India [(2002) 2 SCC 333]. This Court, after review of law on the point, has made following observations in paragraph 88 of the judgment: – 

“88. It will be seen that whenever the Court has interfered and given directions while entertaining PIL it has mainly been where there has been an element of violation of Article 21 or of human rights or where the litigation has been initiated for the benefit of the poor and the underprivileged who are unable to come to court due to some disadvantage. In those cases also it is the legal rights which are secured by the courts. We may, however, add that public interest litigation was not meant to be a   weapon to challenge the financial or economic decisions which are taken by the Government in exercise of their administrative power. No doubt a person personally aggrieved by any such decision, which he regards as illegal, can impugn the same in a court of law, but, a public interest litigation at the behest of a stranger ought not to be entertained. Such a litigation cannot per se be on behalf of the poor and the downtrodden, unless the court is satisfied that there has been violation of Article 21 and the persons adversely affected are unable to approach the court.” 

168. In a democracy, it is the prerogative of each elected Government to follow its own policy. Often a change in Government may result in the shift in focus or change in economic policies. Any such change may result in adversely affecting some vested interests. Unless any illegality is committed in the execution of the policy or the same is contrary to law or malafide, a decision bringing about change cannot per se be interfered with by the court. 

169. It is neither within the domain of the courts nor the scope of judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise or whether better public policy can be evolved. Nor are the courts inclined to strike down a policy at the behest of a petitioner merely because it has been urged that a different policy would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or more logical. Wisdom and advisability of economic policy are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review. In matters relating to economic issues the Government has, while taking a decision, right to “trial and error” as long as both trial and error are bona fide and within the limits of the authority. For testing the correctness of a policy, the appropriate forum is Parliament and not the courts. 

170. Normally, there is always a presumption that the Governmental action is reasonable and in public interest and it is for the party challenging its validity to show that it is wanting in reasonableness or is not informed with public interest. This burden is a heavy one and it has to be discharged to the satisfaction of the court by proper and adequate material. The court cannot lightly assume that the action taken by the Government is unreasonable or against public interest because there are large number of considerations, which necessarily weigh with the Government in taking an action.”

The Bench observed that the petitioner has failed to point out as to how the Scheme of the State Government is inconsistent with the Constitution of India or is arbitrary or irrational or discriminatory as the same is open to all the domicile of Chhattisgarh and not for any particular religion. Further, the Scheme in question is a policy decision of the State which cannot be interfered with as the petitioner has failed to point out as to how the action of the State is inconsistent with the Constitution and the laws or arbitrary or irrational or abuse of the power. In the present case, the Court was 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.

The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) field questioning the sale of the nazul land which was granted on lease by the government to Private Respondent No.8 for building purpose who, subsequently, transferred the said land on lease to respondent Nos. 9 to 13 (Private Respondents) through registered sale deeds without obtaining any permission from the Government.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma noted that ii is undisputed that the land in question was given by the Government to respondent No.8 on lease for the period 1969 to 31st of march, 1992, which was subsequently renewed till March, 2022. Prior to year 2019, there was no provision for converting Nazul lease hold land into free hold in the State of Chhattisgarh, therefore, the power of lessee of Nazul land were only limited to possess, use and assign their lease hold land in accordance with the lease agreement. The transfer of Nazul land require the substitution of new lessee in the Nazul record upon notification or submission of applicable assignment or transfer deeds.

Due to the aforementioned legal position and prevailing law, Respondent No.8 had been holding the subject land with right to success renewal of the permanent lease and right of assignment without prior permission of lessor or Collector, as per terms of lease agreement. Respondent No.8 has subsequently, assigned the lease hold rights to respondent Nos. 9 to 13 and the same was never objected never challenged before any Revenue Authorities or Collector. Further, the amount in the sale deed and lease amount were similar, hence, it cannot be said it was transferred rather it was assigned, which is not barred anywhere.

However, on 11/09/2019, the Government of Chhattisgarh has issued a circular thereby allowing lessee of Nazul land and other Government land to convert their land into free hold land. Based on above policy land and order of State Government thousands of lessees including respondent No. 9 to 13 have converted their lease hold rights into free hold rights by obtaining necessary permission from the Government. Respondent Nos. 9 to 13, thereafter, got free hold rights over the land by the expressed order of Revenue Authorities, which was never challenged by the petitioner. It is a settled proposition that there exists a strong presumption in favour of all the administrative Acts of the Government officials and burden of proof to prove contrary that Government officials have not acted in accordance with law lies on petitioner, which has never been discharged by the petitioner.

“Needless to say, the land in question is now free hold land after issuance circular of Government in the year 2019 and subsequent order passed thereafter, there is no infirmity in the assigning or transfer of land. It is noteworthy here that Section 6 (i) of the Transfer of Property Act lease hold interest is transferable right unless it is restricted or made nontransferable right under relevant lease as the lease deed does not prescribe such condition. So, the transfer is well within the limit of law “.

There is another aspect of the dispute that Madhya Pradesh High Court in the Ali Das (Supra) and this High Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dulari Bai3 has held that provisions of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1955 would not be applicable to Nazul Land situated at urban areas, therefore, the question of violation of 165 (7-B) of the Land Revenue Code does not come into play in the present matter.

Even otherwise, thousands of lands have been transferred after issuance of circular of 2019, it is not clear as to why only respondent Nos. 8 to 13 has been targeted by the petitioner. The Court said that the present dispute is a dispute purely of civil nature which relates to a land of respondent No. 8 and the said dispute cannot be settled by invoking jurisdiction of the Court more particularly as a Public Interest Litigation, when the petitioner has no locus standi and has nothing to do with the dispute. Entertaining the dispute of like nature will amount to abuse of process of law and the same cannot be allowed.

It is not clear to the Court that as to what public interest is being affected by the said land of 11,700 Sq. feet. It is also clear from reply of the State that they have no objection to the said sale or lease of land. The petition also does not disclose as to what is the locus of the petitioner and what is the public interest involved. In such circumstances, the jurisdiction of the Court in the garb of public interest litigation, cannot be invoked.

“It is a settled propositions that every litigant, who approaches the Court, owes a duty to approach the Court with clean hands and disclose complete facts. It is also well settled that a petition which lacks bona fides and is intended to settle some personal sores under the garb of PIL would be nothing but abuse of the process of law. (see: Kalyaneshwari v. Union of India,)”

Further, the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B. has held that the Court has to take a cautious approach while entertaining public interest litigation and held that public interest litigation is a weapon, which has to be used with great care and circumspection. The judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that no ugly private malice, vested interest and/or seeking publicity lurks behind the beautiful veil of public interest. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering social justice to citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief.

Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the case and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the Court do not find any public interest in the petition, therefore, this Court was not inclined to entertain the petition filed as PIL.

The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed seeking direction to the respondents to quash the Notice Inviting Tender  for construction of Dr. Bheemrao Ambedkar Sarv Samaj Manglik Bhawan.

Bhaskar Payashi, Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petition is  filed not only in the larger interest of around 1500 students who are prosecuting their studies in government  Multipurpose Higher Secondary School and in the interest of general public whose kids may come to same school for their studies and so also in the interest of welfare State also as the land belongs to School has been illegally allotted to the Nagar Panchayat, behind the back of Education Department or Principal of the School.   

It is further submitted that the  petition is directed against the illegal allotment of land earlier allotted to the Government Multipurpose Higher Secondary School , somewhere in the year 1955 and  that too, contrary to law without seeking any permission from the School or Education Department of the State. The respondent-Collector has illegally allotted the land bearing admeasuring 0.73 acre to the Nagar Panchayat, Pendra (respondent No.6) for construction of a Community Hall. The land which has been illegally allotted behind the back of School is being used for the practical of Students of Agriculture Department. The said portion of the land contains around 30-40 trees of fruits including Mango, Gauva, Tamrind, Jamun etc. The respondent No.6 is acting like a businessman for earning money in the cost of education of students, against the interest of Govt. Multipurpose Higher Secondary School.  

Payashi further submits that construction of Community Hall is also against the interest of 1500 students and of the School as the same would cause noise pollution, allowing the public to gather near Community Hall. The Government Multipurpose School is running in co- education and so also having Hostel Facility and construction and running of Community Hall would be detrimental to all students including kids of economically weaker section as the Atmanand English Medium School is also being run in same premises and around 1500 students are prosecuting their studies in 2 shifts of the school.   Payashi further submits that prior to 1955 there was no School in Pendra, therefore, considering the difficulty faced by the local public, local residents donated land for the establishment of the School. Such land was earlier recorded in the name of erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh and thereafter same has been allotted in the name of Government Multipurpose Higher Secondary School, Pendra. The land belonged to local residents who had donated the same for the welfare of the public at large for construction of a school and the same cannot be allowed for any other purpose than for what it was donated. The Nagar Panchayat Pendra has not planted a single tree in the last 10-15 years and on the other hand they are going to cut trees for construction of Community Hall which would be detrimental to the ecosystem of the area and adversely affect the Pollution Level. 

On the other hand,  Vinay Pandey,  Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State submits that the main ground which has been urged by the petitioners in the  petition is that the alleged allotment of land in question to the Nagar Panchayat Pendra is liable to be quashed being illegal on the sole ground that before cancellation of allotment in favour of School, no opportunity of hearing has been provided to the Principal of the school and as per the provisions contained in the Land Revenue Code, the Collector has to obtain permission for review of its order before cancelling the allotment in favour of school from the learned Board of Revenue, but, the same has not been done and the respondent Nagar Panchayat is carrying out constructing of community hall over the land illegally allotted to it dehors provisions of applicable for allotment of land. No right is demonstrated by the present petitioners for the enforcement of which a writ may be issued by this Hon’ble Court. The present petition is not maintainable and accordingly is liable to be dismissed at the threshold for the reason that the impugned allotment order passed by the Collector, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi is an appealable order as provided under Section 44 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 before the Divisional commissioner and without availing the said statutory alternative remedy, the petitioner has directly approached the Court by way of filing the appeal.  

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice  Arvind Kumar Verma noted that the  PIL has been filed by the petitioners among whom petitioner No. 1 belongs to legal profession and is well aware of the remedies available to him for approaching the appropriate Court/forum for redressal of his grievance, if any. In the present case, the Court was 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. Even otherwise, the petitioner has alternative efficacious remedy for redressal of his grievance as raised in the petition.

From perusal of the return filed by the State as well as the respondents No. 6 and 7, the Court noted that after following the due process of law, the land in question has been allotted for construction of a Community Hall. Construction of the community Hall is also one of the facilities which the State or the local administration provides to the public at large which is used for various purposes and the same cannot be treated to be one which is a commercial activity or unproductive activity. The distance of the school and   the community hall is quite reasonable and would not cause any hindrance in any manner to the School or the students. Even otherwise, the allotment order passed by the Collector, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi is an appealable order under Section 44 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 before the Divisional Commissioner which has not been availed of by the petitioners and the petitioners have directly approached the Court by way of filing the present appeal. 

The Court granted liberty to the petitioners to take recourse to appropriate forum as provided under the law, if so advised.

The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed as withdrawn a Public Interest Litigation filed seeking direction to the respondents to follow in letter and spirit the Guidelines (Format For Preparation of Village Relocation Plan from Core/Critical Tiger Habitats, February 2008 issued by the National Tiger Conservation Authority, New Delhi).

The PIL filed by one Nitin Singhvi further prayed for direction to the respondent authorities to take immediate steps towards expediting the relocation process and complete the relocation of all the villages situated in the core area within a period of 6 months.

The Petitioner also prayed to direct the respondents to submit a time-bound relocation plan of all villages situated inside the core area of the Achanakmar Tiger Reserve.

Surya Kawalkar Dangi, counsel for the petitioner, seeks permission of the Court to withdraw the present petition with a liberty to file an appropriate application in the PIL of 2021, which is pending before the High Court on the same subject.

In view of the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma , dismissed as withdrawn the Petition with the aforesaid liberty, as prayed for.

The Chhattisgarh High Court directed the petitioners to approach the Collector, Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for redressal of their grievance regarding establishment of Enery plants in the village Mohbhattha of Balodabazzar-Bhatapara District.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice  Arvind Kumar Verma disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking following directions:-

-to direct the respondent authorities not to issue permission to respondent No. 7 (Private Limited ) for establishment of proposed plants in the village Mohbhattha, Tahsil Simga, District Balodabazzar-Bhatapara (C.G.).  

–  to direct the respondent authorities that if any permission  for establishment of plant in the village Mohbhattha, Tahsil Simga, District Balodabazzar-Bhatapara (C.G.) have been issued by the respondent authorities, the same shall be cancelled and the respondent No. 7 may be restrained from establishment of plants in the said village.

Shikhar Sharma, counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have approached the Collector, Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for redressal their grievance by way of representation, but the same has not yet been decided. On the other hand, State counsel submits that the grievance of the petitioners can be redressed by the Collector.

Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and also considering that the petitioners have approached the Collector, Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for redressal of their grievance by way of representation, the petitioners are directed by the High Court to pursue the remedy before the Collector who shall decide their representation in accordance with law after hearing necessary and interested parties within a period of 8 weeks, if already not decided.

The Chhattisgarh High Court directed the Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Limited, to file his personal affidavit explaining the situation with regard to availability / non-availabiltiy of funds to the District Hospital, Bilaspur as well as CIMS, Bilaspur.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal has taken cognizance of the newsitem alleging that medicines for cold, cough and fever are also not available in the biggest government hospital.

From the newsitem the Court noted that even after constant efforts being taken by the State authorities, the situation in CIMS is still pathetic and needs much more improvement.

The women who were in a family way were made to stand in a queue and some had to return back because of non-availability of the staff etc. for treatment.

In compliance of the directions of the Chief Secretary, the District Magistrate had visited the CIMS yesterday, but on December 28 another news item was published regarding lack of funds and nonavailability of necessary medicines, hence, the Court called upon the District Magistrate, Bilaspur as well as the Dean, CIMS, Bilaspur, who are present before the Court.

Avanish Sharan, District Magistrate, Bilaspur has informed the Bench that he is personally monitoring the sitaution and working of the CIMS in pursuance of the directions given by the Chief Secretary of the State and he has ensured that though there appears to be some internal problems in the working of the CIMS, but he is taking necessary steps for bringing the things in order.

Considering the assurance given by the District Magistrate, Bilaspur, the Court ordered that let the matter be listed again on 17.01.2024 as has been directed earlier by the Court on which date, he shall file his personal affidavit with respect to the above issues.

In the meanwhile, we also direct the Chief Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, to be in continous touch with the District Magistrate, Bilaspur and provide him all the necessary assistance so that he may not face any difficulty with respect to the compliance of the orders passed by the Court on earlier dates.

Further, the Bench also directed the Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Limited, to file his personal affidavit with respect to the aforesaid news item published in the Newspaper and shall explain the situation with regard to availability/non-availabiltiy of funds to the District Hospital, Bilaspur as well as CIMS, Bilaspur.

Matter will be listed on 17.01.2024.

The Chhattisgarh High Court directed the Chief Secretary of the State to take appropriate steps with regard to the pollution caused by the factory’s waste.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal heard a Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation (PIL) registered on the basis of the news item published in daily newspaper named “Remains of factories set on fire”

The Bench noted from the news item that the remains of factories are being dumped on vacant land in the busiest area of Sirgitti and are also being set on fire with impunity. Burning of remains is not only polluting the environment, but also playing with the health of residents of nearby vicinity.

“It is not that this is the first case of burning of factory waste in this area. Burning of garbage continues unabated. Despite this, till date no action has been taken by the Environment Department nor has the local administration tightened its grip on such owners. Therefore, they spread dirt wherever they want. “

Considering the aforesaid facts, the Bench directed the Chief Secretary, State of Chhattisgarh is directed to file his personal affidavit regarding the news item.

Considering the fact that wastage from the factories etc. which is being burnt in an open place where the cattles are also seen grazing the wastage and which is also affecting the health of the citizens at large and that in past also some incident has taken place where the various vehicles were found burnt, the High Court directed the Chief Secretary of the State inform to the Court regarding the steps being taken by him so that the wastage of the factories and other establishments are not burnt in an open place causing danger to the health of the citizens as well as the animals.

The Court noted that entire area from Pendridih bypass road to the High Court, environment is being polluted because of the coal dust due to Hirri mines and the entire plantation in the said area is being destroyed due to dust and it has been further noticed that large number of plastic bags and garbage are being dumped and cows are consuming the same and pollution is also being caused. It is of great concern to the health of common passers-by using the said road including the residents of the vicinity as well as the animals eating the said garbage. Therefore, the Chief Secretary of the State is directed by the Court to take appropriate steps in this regard.

Matter is listed on 10th January, 2024 for further hearing.