SUO MOTO PROCEEDING Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter was originally filed by four persons by name, Smt. Krishna Bai Patel, Shri Padum Lal Patel, Shri Bhim Ram Nayak and Shri Chhatarmani Patel, styled themselves as 'public spirited citizens' standing for the cause of the society; by virtue of the Fundamental Duties enshrined under Article 51A under Part IV A {in particular, sub clause (a), (d), (g), (h), (i) and (j)}, read with the Directive Principles of the State Policy under Article 38(1) 39A and 48A of the Constitution of India. Grievance was mainly with regard to the alleged encroachment into the public property {land belonging to the 3rd Respondent-Chhattisgarh Mineral Development Corporation (for short 'the CMDC') which is a State Government Undertaking} by the 4th Respondent-Jindal Power Limited, and against the constructions effected allegedly in violation of the relevant provisions of law, in the course of expansion of their project. The prayers are as extracted below:

(2.) When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 23.11.2016, in view of the allegation that the 4th Respondent was illegally possessing the lands belonging to the 3rd Respondent-CMDC, without commenting on the merits of the case, at that stage, this Court directed the Managing Director of the 3rd Respondent-CMDC to file personal affidavit to explain as to what steps the CMDC had taken to recover its land, which according to the CMDC was in illegal occupation of the 4th Respondent. The said allegation was sought to be rebutted by the 4th Respondent-CMDC.

(3.) Subsequently, when the matter was listed before this Court on 27.08.2019, taking note of the proceedings filed from the part of the Petitioners, virtually disowning the lawyer whom they had engaged and the attempt to turn back, we directed the original Writ Petitioners to be transposed as additional Respondents in the writ petition and Shri U.N.Awasthy, the learned Senior Counsel who was addressing the Court earlier on behalf of the original Writ Petitioners, as assisted by Ms. Raksha Awasthy, was appointed as Amicus Curiae to help the Court, to take the proceedings to a logical conclusion with reference to the merits involved.