JUDGMENT :

B.S. Chauhan, C.J. - This Public Interest Litigation has been filed raising a grievance that the Rourkela Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the "Authority") had earlier earmarked certain area of land for hospital, post office and Sulav Sauchalaya. However, in the said land a Commercial Complex has been constructed and shops have been allotted to private persons. Therefore, prayer is made to demolish the shops and the land should be restored to its original position and hospital, post office and Sulav Sauchalaya should be constructed on the said land.

2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners before this Court are practicing Advocates of the local court and being public spirited persons they feel aggrieved that the shops have been allotted to private persons. Therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed.

3. The learned Standing Counsel has opposed the learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently contending that the Petitioner has not filed any document to substantiate the averment that the land had been earmarked for the aforesaid purposes and in the absence of proper pleadings and documents to substantiate the same the petition cannot be entertained. Secondly, if the authorities competent to change the use of the land and has changed it for different purpose, Petitioners can not have any grievance thereof. None of such allottees is a party before this Court. Therefore, the petition suffers from non-joinder of necessary party. More so, in any case the Petitioners are not able to show any injury to them or to the public at large. The petition was filed in 1999 when the applications had been invited for allotment of shops. Had the Petitioners been diligent enough they could have approached the Court at the time when the construction of the commercial complex started. This petition is pending before this Court for last one decade. No order has yet been passed. The persons who had been allotted the shops are running their business. Thus no interference is called for at such a belated stage. This PIL has been filed to achieve an ulterior purpose. Therefore, it is liable to be dismissed with exorbitant costs.

4. We have considered the rival submissions made by the parties and perused the records. Admittedly not a single person who has been allotted the shops in that commercial complex, raised by the authorities, is a party before us. Petition suffers from non-joinder of necessary party and therefore relief, sought by the Petitioners, cannot be granted. The person who is likely to be adversely affected is a necessary party and no order can be passed behind his back. (Vide Prabodh Verma and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, ; Ishwar Singh v. Kuldip Singh; Bhagwanti and Ors. v. Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana and Anr., 1995 Supp (2) SCC 663,; Central Bank of India Vs. S. Satyam and others, ; J. Jose Dhanapaul Vs. S. Thomas and Others, ; Arun Tewari and Ors. v. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh and Ors. AIR 1998 SC 331; Azhar Hasan and Others Vs. Distt. Judge, Saharanpur and Others, ; Ram Swarup and Others Vs. S.N. Maira and Others, ; Shri L. Chandrakishore Singh Vs. State of Manipur and Others, ; Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani and Others Vs. District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur and Others, ; Nirmala Anand v. Advent Corporation (P) Ltd. and Ors. AIR 2002 SC 2090; M.P. Rajya Sahkari Bank Maryadi Vs. Indian Coffee Workers' Co-operative Society Ltd. and Others, ; and Ramrao and Others Vs. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Association and Others, ).

5. It is settled law that a person who suffers from legal injury only can challenge the act/action/order etc. Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable for enforcing the statutory or legal right or when there is a complaint by the Petitioner that there is a breach of the statutory duty on the part of the Respondents. Therefore, there must be judicially enforceable right for the enforcement on wh