“It would also be appropriate for this Court for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. 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 Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking following reliefs:-

“10.1 Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to proper inquiry and may be pleased to command the respondents by appropriate writ or order to lodge FIR against the corrupt employees without loss of time and action may kindly be taken by CBI and case may be monitored by this Hon’ble Court.

10.2 Issue any writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.

10.3 Cost of the petition may also kindly be awarded.”

By this PIL, the petitioner, which is a non-governmental organization (NGO), has filed this petition through its Secretary, seeking for issuance of an appropriate writ to the respondents directing them to take cognizance on the serious complaints made by the him to the authorities of the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and also to the Central Bureau of Investigation to enquire the matter of corruption and to register FIR against the corrupt officers/employees of the FCI. In the complaint made by the petitioner on 16.12.2018 to the FCI, it has replied on 14.01.2019 that they have charge-sheeted one Class I Officer of the rank of Assistant General Manager and few Class II and Class III officials. However, the Class I officers, who made the payments and who allowed them to make payments were left untouched. The respondents have not taken any action for the losses suffered to the public exchequer for the period from 2006-2011 because of double payment and inaction by the senior officers in spite of all relevant records/ documents available with them and till date, no FIR has been lodged even after the prima facie evidence have been submitted to the respondent authorities.

J.K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as Assistant Manager in the FIC and retired from services in the year 2006. Because of the rampant corruption, the employees of FCI are facing great difficulties. The petitioner held the post of Union representative and thereafter also held the post of Secretary, Pradarshak Social Welfare Society, Bhopal. There have been many complaints regarding huge bogus payments made to the contractors from 2006 onwards at a very exorbitant rate for transportation of food grains by longer routes while as per the rules/conditions of contract, the payment was to be made for the shortest route. Non investigation of the said illegal activities has caused huge losses to the State and the Government of India. The petitioner has pointed out various illegal and corrupt practices which were prevailing in the FCI, as stated from paragraph 8.1 to 8.5 of the petition. The petitioner has also made various complaints to respondent authorities to take action against the erring officers, however, no action has been taken till date and only the petty Class III employees are being made the scapegoat. Hence, this petition.

On the other hand, Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India, Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Chhattisgarh and Mr. R.S.Patel, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Food Corporation of India would submit that firstly, the petitioner has no locus to file this petition. The petitioner has an alternative remedy to approach the Lokpal under Section 14 of the Lokpal and Lokayutkas Act, 2013. They would rely on the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Ram Avtar Singh Jadon v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others, Writ Petition No. 8141/2012, decided on 01.08.2013, wherein the Division Bench had disposed of the matter on the ground that if the petitioner therein has any greivance, he may move an application before the Lokayukta. They would further submit that the petitioner has several other forums available if he has any grievance. He may file a complaint before the concerned authorities or the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction.

Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, the Bench does not find any locus of the petitioner in this matter, if petitioner is aggrieved, he can go before the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievances.Therefore the Court dismissed the PIL.

The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking direction to the respondent authorities to take proper legal action against the private respondents and also against the responsible revenue officers, who have wrongly given help to the private respondents in commission of forgery in respect of government land.

Shikhar Sharma, counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the present petition is filed as a public interest litigation, indicating that the petitioner is a public-spirited person and not motivated by personal interests. He submitted that the petitioner resides in the village Lahroud, Tahsil Pithora, District Mahasamund. According to him, there is government land registered under the designation of “Bade Jhad Ka Jungle,” with an area of 4.86 hectares. This land has been recorded as “Bade Jhad Ka Jungle” in the Missal record of 1986-1987. The petitioner has provided a copy of the Missal record from the year 1989-90 pertaining to the land.

It is submitted that the private respondent No. 7 obtained the land ownership document in his favour and later on, sold it to respondent No.6. The petitioner seeks legal action to address this encroachment and protect the government land. He would further submit that the petitioner has not filed any previous public interest petitions related to this matter. This suggests that the present petition is his first attempt to address the issues surrounding the encroachment, forgery, illegal acquisition of land, and fraudulent transactions.

In the matter at hand, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey is of the view that the petitioner has appropriate course of action under Section 248 of the Land Revenue Code to address the encroachment upon government land, and the petitioner instead of pursuing the prescribed legal proceedings before the revenue court, he has chosen to initiate a public interest litigation (PIL).

Therefore, at this stage, the Court could not issue a writ to undertake fact-finding or conduct an inquiry into the identity of the encroachers or the extent of the encroachment, as this issue falls within the jurisdiction of the revenue authority, as stipulated by Section 248 of the Land Revenue Code. Consequently, the bench found no good ground to entertain the petition at the preliminary stage, hence the PIL was dismissed.

The Chhattisgarh High Court has directed the petitioners to approach the Collector, Bilaspur for redressal of their grievances regarding operations for the permission of coal washeries in the scheduled area of the petitioners.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking direction to stay the further effect and operations for the permission of coal washeries in the scheduled area of the petitioners and looking to the conduct of the respondent authorities a transparent enquiry to be conducted for safeguarding the fundamental rights of the petitioners/ villagers.

The Counsel for the State have pointed out that the petition is a premature one and no environmental clearance has been given for the establishment of Coal Washeries at Village Khargahni.

He further submitted that the petitioners had themselves approached the Collector on 24.4.2023. A copy of the same has also been received by the office of Collector, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh whereby they have raised their grievances before him but the said application has not yet been decided.

The State counsel also submitted that the petitioners have remedy under Section 165(6)(b) of the Land Revenue Code, 1959 for redressal of their grievance but from the perusal of the application filed on 24.4.2023, it does not transpire whether the said application has been filed under the aforesaid provision or not.

The counsel for the petitioners stated that he will approach the Collector with the fresh application under the aforesaid provision and the Collector may be directed to decide the same within the stipulated period.

“With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petitioners are directed to approach the Collector, Bilaspur/ respondent No.6 for redressal of their grievance by moving a fresh application in view of the relevant provisions of the Land Revenue Code, 1959, who shall decide the same within a period of three months after giving due opportunity of hearing to the parties”, the Bench directed.

The Chhattisgarh High Court has disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking direction to the respondent to ensure proper medical facilities to the needy people, punishment for the careless staff and penalising the mischievous.

The PIL filed by one S.B. Pandey further seeks direction to the respondent authority to make sure to provide better medical facilities to the needy people of state and make a stiff rule against the careless staff who are waster and throw out the important medicines which are not expired.

On 04.05.2023, the Court had passed the following order: 
“Heard Mr. S.B. Pandey, petitioner in person and Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents. 
The petitioner, appearing in person, who is an Advocate by profession, has filed this public interest litigation petition depicting the pathetic condition of the medical services because of which people of the State are suffering.

The petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the vacancies and lack of medical staff in the Government Hospitals and Dispensaries. He would further submit that medicines are let to expire without its distribution to the needy persons.

Even those medicines which have not expired have also been thrown/destroyed, which is a waste of public exchequer. 
In view of the above submissions, learned Counsel for the State/respondents is directed to seek instructions.

The Director, Health Services, Chhattisgarh, is directed to file an affidavit in response to the averments made in the petition before the next date of hearing. List this case again on 11.05.2023.”

In compliance with the order dated 04.05.2023 passed by the High Court, an affidavit has been filed by the Director, Directorate of Health Services, Government of Chhattisgarh, which is on record.

The Bench noted from the said affidavit  that certain explanations have been given by the Director, Directorate of Health Services that the news that has been published in the newspaper regarding the sorry state of affairs of the medicine and medical health in the state. 

Considering the fact that Director, Directorate of Health Services has now taken efforts to curb out misuse of the medicines, which have expired or going to expire by filing the affidavit and the assurance given by the Advocate General that medical services in the state would be maintained by the state so that needy gets treatment and medicines at a proper time, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey disposed of the petition.

The Chhattisgarh High Court rejected a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking direction mandating to set up an appropriate structure to look after the functioning of the Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Dairy Federation and to keep a check on the quantity and quality of the products produced and marketed by it.

The PIL filed by one Mukesh Chandra Pujari further seeks direction to institute any appropriate enquiry against the responsible authorities/officials/employees who have been committing fraud and cheating and are acting negligently and irresponsibly against the public by selling and marketing the milk and milk products with less quantity than mentioned and of compromised quality and punish them under the relevant provisions.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey noted that a complaint has already been under Sections 3(1)(zf)(C)(i) of the Food Safety & Standard Act, 2006 and Rule 21(2) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, and inspite of the said complaint being filed against the Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Dairy Federation (respondent No.1) , no action has been taken, hence the present PIL.

“But, as the appropriate authority has filed a complaint under the Act of 2006 and the Rules of 2011 against respondent No.1, it will be more appropriate for the petitioner that the proceedings initiated against the respondent No.1 be brought to its logical end before the competent Court, we are not inclined to entertain this PIL”, the Court observed.

Therefore the Court rejected the PIL.

The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking direction to the respondents for identifying and registering all auto drivers under the Unorganized Worker’ Social Security Act, 2008.

The PIL filed by Chhattisgarh Auto Chalak Sangh also seeks following relief:-

• Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to extend benefits under existing schemes to auto drivers, frame new schemes for auto drivers under the Unorganized Workers’ Social Security Act, 2008;
• Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to frame a scheme granting fuel subsidy to all auto drivers;
• Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to provide a monthly assistance relief package to all auto drivers;

The facts are that all forms of the public transport was prohibited during spread of Covid-19 in pursuance of order issued by Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs under National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) under Section 6(2)(i) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. The ban on public transport was lifted from 27.05.2020.

Lakhan Singh Bhadoriya, Advocate for the petitioner submit that the Auto Rickshaw were purchased by members of the petitioner association through bank loan and during lockdown period, they suffered economic loss, but no financial assistance was provided by the State, whereas Auto Rickshaw drivers are covered under “Unorganised Workers’ Social Security Act, 2008”. He further submitted that the Government of NCT Delhi has provided one time financial assistance to Auto Rickshaw Owners, but the State Government of Chhattisgarh has failed to provide any kind of financial assistance to the members of the petitioner association.

On the other hand, Counsel for the State and Chhattisgarh State Legal Services Authority submitted that the members of petitioner association were not registered under Unorganised Workers’ Social Security Act, 2008, therefore, they are not entitled to get any benefit under this Act. They have further stated that as per the definition clause of this Act, particularly Section 2 (k), 2 (l) & 2 (m) of the Act, 2008, it is crystal clear that the if workers are not covered by any of the Acts mentioned in Schedule II to this Act would not entitle to get benefit under this Act. Section 2 (k), 2 (l) & 2 (m) of the Act, 2008 are reproduced herein below :-

“2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:- (k) “self-employed worker” means any person who is not employed by an employer, but engages himself or herself in any occupation in the unorganised sector subject to a monthly earning of an amount as may be notified by the Central Government or the State Government from time to time or holds cultivable land subject to such ceiling as may be notified by the State Government.

(l) “unorganised sector” means an enterprise owned by individuals or self employed workers and engaged in the production or sale of goods or providing service of any kind whatsoever, and where the enterprise employs workers, the number of such workers is less than ten.

(m) “unorganised worker” means a home-based worker, self-employed worker or a wage worker in the unorganised sector and includes a worker in the organised sector who is not covered by any of the Acts mentioned in Schedule II to this Act.”

They further submit that the members of the petitioner association are Auto Rickshaw drivers and mostly are owners of the Auto Rickshaw and according to Section 2 (k), (l) & (m) of the Act, 2008, they are self-employed workers. It is also submitted that the contention raised by the petitioner that there is no beneficiary scheme for Auto drivers is misconceived and from Annexure R-5/5, it is very much evident that the registered Auto drivers were given benefit of Chhattisgarh Unorganised Workers State Social Security Board Scheme, in which 31 members were given cycles; 608 members were given E-Rickshaws; 14 members were given financial assistance on account of death and physical disability; 164 students/children of members of association have been given stipends; 10 members have been given maternity assistance and 12 members have been given funeral expenses under the scheme. It is further contended that the members who were registered have been provided financial assistance and the members who were not registered, are not covered under Chhattisgarh Unorganised Workers’ Social Security Rules, 2010.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey noted that the petitioner has not pleaded in this petition that all the members of petitioner association are registered under the Act, 2008 or the Rules, 2010. The contention of counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the Auto Rickshaw drivers/owners have not been identified and registered under the Act, 2008 is misconceived as Schedule 1 of Chhattisgarh Unorganised Workers State Social Security Board Scheme includes Auto Rickshaw drivers and under this scheme till 30.07.2021, total 1437636 persons have already been registered in the State of Chhattisgarh. Further the State Government has provided financial assistance to the Auto Rickshaw drivers and their family members and same is evident from Annexure R-5/5 where 31 members were given cycles; 608 members were given E-Rickshaws; 14 members were given financial assistance on account of death and physical disability; 164 students of members of association have been given stipends; 10 members have been given maternity benefits and 12 member have been given funeral expenses under this scheme , the Bench observed.

The Court has gone through the provisions of Section 2 (k), (l) & (m) of the Act, 2008 which defines self employed worker, unorganised sector and unorganised worker. The benefit under the Act, 2008 cannot be extended until or unless a person is registered under this Act. As the petitioner neither pleaded nor demonstrated that the members of the petitioner association are registered under the Act, 2008, therefore, they are not covered under the Act, 2008 and as such they are not entitled to get financial assistance from the State Government.

Further the Court noted that first two reliefs have already been extended by the State Government and the same is evident from the Schedule 1 of Chhattisgarh Unorganised Workers State Social Security Board Scheme where the Rickshaw driver finds place at serial No. 7. 9. and as members of the petitioner are not registered under the Act, 2008 and the Rules, 2010, therefore, they are not entitled to get other relief(s) as sought for.