2005 Supreme(Raj) 3324
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Rajesh Balia, R.P.Vyas, JJ.
Ajeet Singh Singhvi - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Civil Special Appeal No. D.R. (J) 3682 of 2002.
Decided On : 5-12-2005
For the Respondent:B.K. Vyas, J.L. Purohit and S.L. Jain,Advocates.
Headnote:The present case pertains to the plea of the appellant to be impleaded as a party to the present petition filed in the form of a PIL – held, appellant neither a proper party nor a necessary party so as to be impleaded in the petition and nor can he be treated as an aggrieved person because he has shown personal interest in purchasing the plot and hence this litigation cannot be pursued as a PIL.
Judgement Key Points
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
-
The appellant sought to be impleaded as a party in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) related to a plot of land, claiming personal interest due to his proximity to the plot (!) (!) .
-
The Court held that the appellant was neither a proper nor a necessary party to the PIL because he had shown a personal interest rather than a public interest, and therefore, his inclusion was unwarranted (!) (!) .
-
The appellant's claim was based on his adjacency to the plot and a prior bid for the same plot, but these did not establish a vested or sufficient interest to qualify him as an aggrieved person in the PIL (!) (!) .
-
The appellant's application to be impleaded was filed long after the petition was ripe for hearing, without adequate explanation for the delay (!) .
-
The Court emphasized that personal interest in a land dispute disqualifies an individual from pursuing a PIL, which is meant to address issues of public concern, not individual grievances (!) (!) .
-
The Court dismissed the appeal and the application under the Limitation Act, affirming that the appellant was not entitled to be a party in the PIL and was not an aggrieved person (!) .
-
Overall, the decision underscores that only individuals with a genuine public interest or who are directly affected in a manner recognized as necessary for PIL can be parties to such litigation, and personal interests alone are insufficient (!) (!) .
Would you like a more detailed analysis or assistance with related legal principles?
JUDGMENT
1. - This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 16.4.2002 by which the Writ Petition No. 3948/97 filed by one Khumandas Rankawat stated to be a public interest litigation was dismissed by learned Single Judge finding no merit in it.
2. The present appellant has moved an application on 14.12.2001 to be impleaded him as a party in that writ petition to support the petitioner. While dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge rejected the application of the present appellant also finding that he has no right in the plot in question.
3. The appeal is barred by 46 days. The application under section 5 of Limitation Act has been moved stating that since the appellant was not represented by lawyer be could not come to know about the order under challenge, therefore, he could not file the appeal within limitation.
4. Assuming for the present purpose that delay in filing the appeal is condoned, however, we do not find any substance in the appeal to keep it pending at the instance of the petitioner-appellant.
5. The writ petition was filed as a public interest litigation whereas the appellant in this case, in his application to be impleaded as party, has shown personal interest in the litigation by alleging himself to be an intending bidder for the plot In question which was allotted to respondent No. 5, Shri Bhanwar Lal Chordia in exchange of plot for which he had bid way back in the year 1970 and had deposited 1/4 of the amount in 1970 itself and bid was accepted in December 1970,but finding that the delivery of the possession could not be given to the buyer whose bid has been accepted in December. 1970 because it was in occupation of some other person, U.I.T. finally agreed to provide him alternative land.
6. Be that as it may, the personal interest shown in purchase of the said plot dis-entitles the present appellant to pursue this litigation as a public interest litigation. If he has personal interest, he could pursue his own remedy but he is not a person, who could be substituted himself to be party in the public interest litigation for the said cause. Secondly, he has not impleaded in this petition, the person,at whose instance, the petition has been filed. Moreover, he has made an application to be impleaded as a party in the pending writ petition about 4 years after its filing when the petition was ripe for hearing.No reason was assigned for such belated arousal of interest in this Its.
7. Apart from that his only claim to the plot in question is on the ground that his plot is situated adjacent to that plot. Merely because the appellant was owing a plot adjacent to plot allotted to respondent No. 5, he does not have any vested or other interest in that land.
8. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that no fault can be found with the order of the learned Single Judge in rejecting his application to be impleaded as party and since he was not found a proper or necessary party to be impleaded in the writ petition, he cannot be treated as an aggrieved person. Moreover, the appellant has not even sought leave to appeal against order on merit as a person otherwise aggrieved of the order, except as a consequence of his being impleaded as party.
9. Accordingly, the application under section 3 of Limitation Act as well as the appeal by the present appellant are dismissed.Appeal Dismissed..
*******
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
