TAPAS KUMAR CHATTERJEE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -WE have heard the petitioner in person, who is an Advocate of this Court. He has filed this writ petition purportedly claiming to be in public interest. He has submitted that the book fair which is scheduled to be held with effect from 15th March, 2008 till 10th March, 2008 at Salt Lake City would not be in public interest.

(2.) WE have perused the writ petition. We are of the considered opinion that the writ petition does not disclose any cause of action to enable the petitioner to present the writ petition as a public interest litigation. The petitioner has vehemently argued that outside the stadium where the book Fair is scheduled to be held would be an abuse of the stadium which is reserved for the exclusive use of the sportsmen. In support of the submissions the petitioner has relied on a Judgment of the Supreme court in the case of J. Jayalalitha v. Government of Tamil Nadu, reported in (1991)1 SCC 53. We have perused the aforesaid Judgment. We are of the considered opinion that the law laid down in the aforesaid Judgment would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

(3.) IN that case the State Government had by a notification banned the use of one Nehru Stadium for conducting activities other than sports and games by virtue of an order dated 9. 11. 82 issued by the State Government. This was applicable not only to Nehru Stadium but other Stadiums in the state as well. The High Court of Madras had granted permission to the chief Minister to celebrate his 71st birth day. The permission granted by the Madras High Court was only modified by the Supreme Court in appeal from the interim order passed by the Madras High Court. The function was permitted to be held, in the peculiar facts of that case. In the present case, no such ban exists and none has been either pleaded or pointed out at the time of the hearing, with regard to the user of Yuba Bharati krirangan, Salt Lake, Kolkata. Therefore, the holding of the Book Fair at the aforesaid venue cannot be said to be in violation of any particular law. In our opinion, the petitioner has filed this writ petition, being naively inspired and misconstruing the Judgments passed by this Court in W. P. No. 72 of 2007 and W. P. No. 1373 (W) of 2008. The Judgments in both the writ petitions above have no bearing on the issue raised in the present writ petition. The petitioner in the present case has not placed on the record any material to show that there would be any danger to the local environment whereas in the earlier cases specific material had been placed with regard to levels of pollution and other inherent dangers to the society. Both the Judgments had been rendered by taking into account the environmental problems of the locality and the material brought on the record with regard to the levels of pollution, in these two localities. However, a perusal of the present writ petition would show that pleadings are wholly vague and non-specific about any particular injury that may be caused to any particular group or community. Only general allegations have been made by the petitioner that there would be misuse of the public funds in case the Book Fair is permitted to be held by the Sports and Youth services Department. The petitioner has not cared to do any research or survey of the local conditions prevailing at the venue of the proposed Book fair. Petition seems to be based primarily on newspaper reports. The petition, therefore, is liable to be rejected at the threshold. We may note here the relevant observations of the Supreme Court in the case of S. P. Anand, Indore v. H. D. Deve Gowda and Ors. , reported in (1996)6 SCC 734 at para 18: