Back
2013 Supreme(HP) 999
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
A.M. Khanwilkar, R.B. Misra, JJ.
Mangi Ram And Others — Appellant
Vs.
Union Of India And Others — Respondent
CWP No. 2083 of 2012-I and CWP 349 of 2013-E
Decided on : 22-05-2013
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Digvijay Singh, Mr. K.D. Shreedhar and Mr. Y.S. Thakur
For the Respondent:Digvijay Singh, Advocate, Mr. K.D. Shreedhar and Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Advocate, Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General and Mr. Anup Rattan, Romesh Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. J.K. Verma, D.A.G., Mr. Sandeep Sharma, ASGI and Mr. Ravinder Thakur, CGSC, Mr. J.S. Bhogal and Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate
The Court held that the first two petitions were filed with a delay and laches and that the petitioners had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The Court also held that the grounds raised in the petitions were frivolous, vexatious, and motivated, and that the petitions were not genuine public interest litigations.
Headnote:
The Court dismissed three writ petitions challenging the proposed Bajoli-Holi Hydroelectric Project on the Ravi River in Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, India. The petitions were filed by four petitioners in the first petition, a sole petitioner in the second petition, and the project proponent in the third petition. The Court found that the first two petitions were filed with a delay and laches and that the petitioners had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The Court also found that the grounds raised in the petitions were frivolous, vexatious, and motivated, and that the petitions were not genuine public interest litigations. The Court dismissed the first two petitions and directed the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 25,000/- each to the contesting respondents. The Court also disposed of the third petition with liberty to the petitioner to pursue other remedies as may be permissible in law.
Fact of the Case:
The Bajoli-Holi Hydroelectric Project is a proposed hydroelectric project on the Ravi River in Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, India. The project is being developed by GMR Bajoli-Holi Hydro Power Pvt. Ltd. The project has been opposed by some locals, who have filed writ petitions challenging the project. The petitioners have raised concerns about the environmental impact of the project, the displacement of local people, and the lack of transparency in the project approval process.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the first two petitions were filed with a delay and laches and that the petitioners had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The Court also found that the grounds raised in the petitions were frivolous, vexatious, and motivated, and that the petitions were not genuine public interest litigations.
Issues: 1. Whether the writ petitions were filed with a delay and laches? 2. Whether the petitioners had provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay? 3. Whether the grounds raised in the petitions were frivolous, vexatious, and motivated? 4. Whether the petitions were genuine public interest litigations?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the first two petitions were filed with a delay and laches and that the petitioners had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The Court also held that the grounds raised in the petitions were frivolous, vexatious, and motivated, and that the petitions were not genuine public interest litigations. The Court relied on the following principles in reaching its decision: * The power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and the High Court in the exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. * If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing a writ petition and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. * The evolution of this rule of laches or delay is premised upon a number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy under the writ jurisdiction because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring in its train new injustices. * The rights of third parties may intervene and if the writ jurisdiction is exercised on a writ petition filed after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the first two petitions and directed the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 25,000/- each to the contesting respondents. The Court also disposed of the third petition with liberty to the petitioner to pursue other remedies as may be permissible in law.
JUDGMENT :
A.M. Khanwilkar, C.J.
We have heard counsel for the parties at length. We propose to dispose of all the three writ petitions together by this common judgment. The first petition (CWP No. 2980 of 2012) has been filed by four petitioners in February, 2012, questioning the proposed Bajoli-Holi Hydroelectric Project at river Ravi in District Chamba. The reliefs claimed in this petition, purportedly filed as Public Interest Litigation, read thus:-
(A) The environment clearance dated 24.1.2011 issued by Respondent no. 3 (Annexure- P14) in favour of the Respondent no. 7 may be quashed and set aside.
(B) The in-principle approval dated 08-07-2011 (Annexure P-13) issued by Respondent no. 1 and 4 for diversion of 75.303 hectare forest land may be quashed and set aside.
(C) The Respondents no. 1 and 3 may be directed not to issue further clearances without taking into consideration the Pre Feasibility Report prepared by the Respondent no. 6.
(D) The Respondent no. 1 and 3 may be directed to implement the provisions of the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 while issuing clearances if any to the project proponents in the state of Himachal Pradesh including to the Respondent No. 7.
(E) The recommendations given and proceedings conducted by the Respondent no. 5 may also be quashed and Respondent no. 5 may be directed to associate Respondent no. 6 in future.
(F) Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.
2. The second petition (CWP No. 9980 of 2012) has been filed by sole petitioner in November, 2012, another resident of Tehsil Holi, District Chamba, questioning the continuance of selfsame proposed project after the grant of stage II approval thereto. The reliefs claimed in the second petition reads thus:-
The final approval of forest land dated 20.10.2012 (Annexure P-12) issued by Respondent no. 1 granting diversion of 75.303 hectare forest land may be quashed and set aside.
Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.
3. As both these petitions, purportedly filed as Public Interest Litigation, are in respect of same project, though filed on different dates, seek overlapping direction against the State Authorities to discontinue the project being opposed to the sentiments of the locals in the area, and including the possibility of violations of environmental laws. As a result, both these petitions were heard together.
4. The third petition (CWP No. 349 of 2013) has been filed by the project proponent-Company about the obstructionist attitude of some of the villagers for continuance of the proposed project and to the construction activity undertaken in that regard, inspite of obtaining clearance from the concerned Authorities. On this assertion, the project proponent has prayed for following reliefs:-
(i) That the respondents No. 1 to 4 may be directed to create congenial atmosphere so as to enable the petitioner to undertake the tasks pertaining to the execution of Bajoli-Holi Hydroelectric Project.
(ii) That the respondents 1 to 4 may further be directed to ensure that the respondents 5 to 11 themselves or through their agents, do not stop the construction activities of Bajoli-Holi Hydroelectric Project.
(iii) That the respondents 6 to 11 may be restrained from interfering in the construction activities of Bajoli-Holi Hydroelectric Project themselves or through their agents by blocking the road leading to the project site or in any other way whatsoever.
(iv) Any other order deemed just and proper may also be passed in the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove in favour of the petitioner.
5. Even this petition was ordered to be heard alongwith other two petitions filed by the villagers, opposing the continuance of proposed Hydel Project on r
