Public interest litigation must serve a genuine public cause; courts should not direct CBI investigations unless grave public interest and no alternative remedies exist.

JUDGMENT :

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ.

1. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent-authorities for registration of a criminal case and investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short, “CBI”) against certain individuals.

2. The petitioner states that he filed Public Interest Litigation (St) No. 8716 of 2011 (in short, “PIL-I”) and challenged the amendments made in the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 2005 (in short, “BTAL Act”). The amendments made in the BTAL Act were not in public interest and affected the valuable rights of the farmers. However, PIL-I was not placed before the Court for hearing because the learned counsel for the petitioner did not remove the objections. He filed another PIL vide Public Interest Litigation No. 109 of 2013 (in short, “PIL-II”) in which he filed an application seeking permission to amend the petition. This Court by an order dated 13^th July 2018 granted permission to the petitioner to withdraw the PIL-II with liberty to file a fresh petition. The petitioner further states that on receiving certain information, he realized that the Lavasa Hill Station Project (in short, “Project”) was launched with illegal permissions granted by the government, its officers and Ministers of the Government of Maharashtra. According to the petitioner, several powerful politicians including a former Union Minister for Agriculture, Member of Parliament, Managing Director of the Hindustan Construction Company, etc. were involved in the Project.

3. The petitioner who is an agriculturist by occupation and an advocate by profession approached this Court in Public Interest Litigation No. 146 of 2018 (in short, “PIL-III”) seeking intervention of this Court with the Special permission dated 5^th December 2002 and the Corrigendum dated 11^th December 2002 issued by the Development Commissioner (Industries) in favor of the Lake City Corporation Limited. PIL-III was filed with manifold prayers and this Court made certain observations regarding the duty of the government as repository of public trust. This Court criticized the Project and the Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation (in short, “MKVDC”) which failed to protect the natural resources for the enjoyment of general public. However, the PIL-III was dismissed on 26^th February 2022 with the following observations: -

“90. Although this public interest litigation is designed to espouse a definite public purpose and intended to serve a noble public cause of standing by the farmers, we feel that a ‘judicial hands-off’ approach is perhaps best suited in the present case having regard to the intervening delay between the alleged acts of violation of Constitutional guarantees and institution of this public interest litigation. If at all interference were an option upon weighing the factors for and against interference, in our considered opinion, the harm that interference at this belated stage would cause is likely to far out-weigh the benefit that could, if at all, accrue to the farmers on whose behalf the petitioner has instituted this writ petition. It has been almost more than a decade that Lavasa has come into existence. By this time, the farmers have lost rights in respect of their properties, which have since been developed and third-party interests created in respect thereof. The lands may not be conducive for farming any more. There is no claim by a farmer that he has not received adequate compensation. We cannot lose sight that not all farmers in India are illiterate or without resources to assert their rights. If there has not been a single foray to this Court at