HARMINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The PIL-petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in the matter of registration of the FIRs on the basis of the complaints filed regarding unauthorized colonies which are being set up or have been set up in the State of Punjab. The number of such unauthorized colonies, according to the petitioner, is about 1100. The petitioner has further averred that FIRs in respect of only about 350 such unauthorized constructions have been registered. Out of the said number, very few cases have been investigated in a proper manner. Coupled with the slipshod investigations many such cases have also been compounded though the power to compound such cases is open to serious doubt. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has filed the present Public Interest Litigation essentially for registration of the FIRs in respect of all the cases and for fast tracking the investigations thereof on legally prescribed lines.

(2.) The first striking feature that the Public Interest Litigation exhibits is the lack of detailed particulars of the alleged illegal colonies. The failure of the PIL-petitioner to do so, perhaps, stem from the fact that number of allegedly unauthorized colonies is huge i.e. 1100 in number. If complaints disclosing cognizable offences under the law have been filed and no action has been taken, the Court in the last resort would direct action in accordance with law to be initiated. However, such orders from the Court can follow only upon due satisfaction that cognizable offences under any law is disclosed by the complaints filed. In absence of the requisite particulars and materials, it is not possible for the Court to reach any such conclusion in the present case.

(3.) Be that as it may, the Court has noticed that a legal notice dated 24.05.2011 (Annexure P-17) has been served by the petitioner on the Chief Secretary of the Government of Punjab. No action on the part of the Chief Secretary is also forthcoming. In the above situation, the Court is of the view that instead of entertaining this Public Interest Litigation, the same ought to be disposed of by observing that as the law enjoins a particular course of action to be taken on the basis of the complaints disclosing cognizable offences, it is the bounden duty of the respondents to so act and bring all such investigations to a logical conclusion and submit a report thereof to the competent Court. If this has to be the eventual conclusion of the Court on the pleadings contained in the writ petition, we do not see why this Public Interest Litigation should be entertained merely to reiterate, at a later stage, the course of action that the law enjoins, a task can very well be performed at this stage.