The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for genuine public interest in public interest litigation and the caution against misuse of the public interest litigation forum.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. Sarangi, J.

The petitioner, claiming to be a social worker, has filed this public interest litigation with the following prayer:-

“In the premises, it is therefore prayed that your Lordship would be graciously pleased to allow this writ petition, issue a Rule NISI calling upon the opposite parties to file show cause as to why the prayer of the petitioner shall not be granted, if the opposite parties fail to file show cause or give insufficient cause, your Lordship would be graciously pleased to make the rule absolute and issue an appropriate writ to the appopos. Further direction be given directing to the opposite parties to examine the correctness of allegations, after finding at the truth take immediate steps to prevent the dumping yard on the cremation field on plot no.568, khata no.492, mouza-Patia, the area of land Ac.0.650 decimals the status of the land is cremation, to prevent the dumping yard near the human inhabited area near the public road, public office.”

2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that plot no.568 corresponding to khata no.492 measuring Ac.0.650 decimals of mouza-Patia has been recorded in Record of Right (RoR) published on 06.12.1973 as “smasan” (cremation ground). It is alleged in the writ petition that the said land is being utilized by Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (BMC) for dumping yard to accumulate waste materials, drain materials, latrine materials, etc. collected from different areas of Bhubaneswar Smart City. Consequentially, the nature and character of the land as cremation ground is being changed. Previously, dead bodies of the locality, including the village Patia and people residing in the apartments, were being cremated in the said land. The authorities with the help of some contractors cleaned the cremation ground by JCB machines and started construction of dumping yard which is just adjacent to the village road and human inhabited area, where apartments, private buildings, public offices and schools are situated. Since local people as well as outsiders, after making buildings and apartments, are permanently residing around the said land, in the event of construction of any dumping yard, the pungent gas emitted out of accumulated waste materials shall cause inconvenience to human inhabitants in the area. Even though the petitioner represented to the Commissioner, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation under Annexure-3, the same was not acceded to. Hence this application.

3. Mr. A. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Bhubaneswar Municipality is contemplating to construct a dumping yard over the land in question, which has been described as ‘smasan’ (cremation ground) in the RoR, by which the nature and character of the land will be changed and it will cause immense difficulties to the local people if such dumping yard would be constructed in the said locality. As such, due to emission of pungent gas, out of accumulated waste materials, drain materials, latrine materials, etc. in the dumping yard, environmental hazardous would be created which would cause immense difficulties to the human inhabitants in the area. It is further contended that if the land in question is permitted to be utilized for dumping yard, no cremation ground will be available for the local people. Therefore, by way of this public interest litigation, the petitioner, who is a social worker, has approached this Court by filing this writ petition seeking interference of this Court.

4. Mr. B.K. Dash, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.1, relying upon the preliminary counter affidavit, argued with vehemence and contended that the writ petition is not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner in view of the fact that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hand and, as such, the writ petition suffers from suppression of material facts. It is contended that in the name of public interest litigation, the petitioner has tried to vindicate his personal in