MANOJ KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Manoj Kumar Singh filed a Public Interest Litigation by bringing in a writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 4259 of 2002: Manoj Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.). This petition was filed on 13 February, 2002. He joined the proceedings. He showed his bona fides that he was interested in protecting the environment and ecology; that the park known as Harding Park has its conforming use as a park only that it cannot be given for commercial purposes, for instance, rented out to a circus; that the High Court had already held jt so in its order of 24 April, 1997 (C.W.J.C. No. 2936 of 1997); that "there can be no justification for the circus to occupy the park land for a long period."

(2.) ON the writ petition of Manoj Kumar Singh the Court gave a declaration in its order dated 16 May, 2002 that the park must see a dedicated plan to restore it for the purposes for which it was created. The Court indicated that the area which is occupied by the Harding Park was virtually a memorial for the Viceroy to give Patna a public park. That it was to be laid out as a park and, in fact, it was dedicated as a park is clear from the archives which the Court had examined the record of which is reproduced in its order of 16 May, 2002. Once the land was conformed for use as a park it clearly came within the ambit of a legislation known as the Bengal Park Act (Bengal Act 2 of 1904). This is also mentioned in the order of 16 May, 2002.

(3.) IN the circumstances, it is not understood why would the petitioner bring a public interest litigation seeking a declaration from the High Court that it is a public park and thereafter file an application to withdraw the petition. This is not the purpose of a public interest litigation. Once a person has informed the Court about a public cause he may come or he may not come, the cause has to be judged. The withdrawal seems like a vested interest at work on the petitioner.