The main legal point established in the judgment is that a writ petition must demonstrate genuine public harm or injury to qualify as a genuine public interest litigation, and the relief claimed must be maintainable under the law laid down by the Apex Court.

K.K. TRIVEDI, J.

1. This pro bono publico under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner is filed seeking following reliefs:

"I. to restore the land of members of tribal family, alleged to be taken, pursuant to lease deed executed by respondent No. 6 and 7;

II. to take appropriate action against respondent No. 5 for abusing its statutory powers;

III. to issue such appropriate writs/order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."

We have reasons to record such a relief in view of the fact that this Court while passing order on application for amendment in the writ petition filed by the petitioner on 22.07.2015, dealt with various objections regarding the said amendment in the writ petition. In fact it is the submission of learned senior Counsel for respondents No. 6 and 7 that the petition as carved for the aforesaid reliefs, is not maintainable before this Court in view of the law laid-down by the Apex Court in the case of Balco Employees' Union (Regd.) vs. Union of India and others, (2002) 2 SCC 333. It is the vehement contention of learned senior Counsel for respondents No. 6 and 7 that the law laid-down by the Apex Court in the case of Samatha vs. State of A.P. and others, (1997) 8 SCC 191 is not applicable in the State of Madhya Pradesh in view of the fact that the same has been distinguished by the Apex Court and virtually has been watered down in the case of Balco Employees' Union (supra), keeping in view the specific provisions of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959.

2. First of all it has to be examined whether the present one can be said to be a genuine Public Interest Litigation or not and whether for the aforesaid reliefs, such a writ petition would still be maintainable, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in various cases. For the purposes of examining the credentials and antecedents of the petitioner, it is required to be seen in what capacity the petitioner has come before this Court. In paragraph 2 of the writ petition, submissions made by the petitioner are that he is local resident of Shahdol district and is interested in protecting the rights of tribal people, who on account of their poverty, backwardness and illiteracy are unable to espouse their cause. However, not a single incident or action taken by the petitioner in fulfillment of the aforesaid object has been described. In the entire petition nothing more is said except that the petitioner is interested in espousing the cause of the tribal people.

3. The main planks of contentions in respect of certain acts alleged by the petitioner are on the improper application of provisions of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (herein after referred to as 'Code'). However, how such rights are affected and whether any alternative mechanism is available under the Code to the aggrieved person to seek redressal against such illegal acts or orders have not been explained. Keeping in view the aforesaid, it has to be tested whether the petitioner can be said to be a real public interest litigant or not.

4. The Apex Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal, (2010) 3 SCC 402 has laid-down certain principles for testing whether a real public interest litigation has been brought to the Court or the same is filed for extraneous consideration. The said principles read thus:

"(1) The courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations.

(2) Instead of every individual judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives.

(3) The courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a P.I.L.

(4) The court should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition bef