BIPRADEEP DEB Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Shri Bipradeep Deb, instituted this Public Interest Litigation (PIL) sometime in the year 2019, praying, inter alia, for the following reliefs:-

(2.) Since filing of the instant PIL, we are informed, the writ petitioner, Shri Bipradeep Deb, has become a member of the Foreigner's Tribunal in Assam. Hence, he has become a judicial/quasi-judicial authority. Therefore, the question of maintaining this PIL by a judicial/quasi-judicial authority, considering the facts and circumstances of the instant case, has to be answered clearly in the negative. That apart and in any event, the pleadings reveal that the writ petitioner is trying to espouse the cause of the para-military and the defence forces of our country. However, the learned advocate representing the respondent Nos.3 and 4, namely, the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi and the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defense, South Block, New Delhi, submits that although there had been certain issues regarding acquisition of land in the State of Meghalaya for the use of para-military and defence forces, his clients do not consider that those issues are required to be resolved through recourse of a PIL and as such, are opposed to the filing of the instant PIL by the writ petitioner, Shri Bipradeep Deb.

(3.) We have perused the pleadings and we do not find any cogent or justifiable reason to entertain this writ petition as a PIL especially when the relevant authorities, i.e., the para-military and defence forces themselves are opposing the PIL. The petitioner, in such a fact situation, cannot espouse the cause of the para-military and defence forces through this mechanism of filing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL).