Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 9528

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Krishna Shukla – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPPIL No. 113 of 2021

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rohit Sharma
For the Respondents: Prasun Bhaduri, Animesh Tiwari

Courts will not interfere in socio-economic policy decisions under Article 226 unless a policy is clearly unconstitutional or violates statutory law. Judicial restraint is mandatory, and unexplained delay or lack of genuine public interest is sufficient grounds to dismiss a Public Interest Litigation.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Public Interest Litigation (PIL) - Scope of judicial review in policy matters - Courts should not transgress into fields of economic or socio-economic policy decisions unless there is a violation of fundamental rights or statutory provisions - Judicial restraint is essential as policy decisions require expertise and balancing of competing interests. (Paras 19, 24, 26, 27)

(B) Writ Petition - Maintainability - Delay and laches - Challenge to executive instructions issued over a decade ago without sufficient explanation or justification for the delay renders a petition liable to be dismissed at the threshold - PIL is reserved for the aggrieved who cannot approach the court, not for hypothetical grievances. (Paras 23, 25, 33)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a retired government officer, filed a PIL challenging the government's method of fixing the purchase price of forest produce. The petitioner argued that current executive orders were inconsistent with older legislative mandates and contended that a national law enacted later had rendered the state legislation redundant. The petitioner sought a mandate for direct, individual payments to collectors and the quashing of departmental instructions regarding profit distribution.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the challenged executive instructions were within the scope of the government's economic and socio-economic policy. The court emphasized that the state agency acted as an authorized agent for trade to protect the interests of vulnerable forest dwellers. It further noted that the petition lacked a compelling public interest and was filed with significant delay without a valid explanation.

Issues: Whether the state's executive instructions regarding the purchase and sale of forest produce violate primary legislation and whether the court should interfere in settled socio-economic policy via a writ petition.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that judicial review is not meant for the re-evaluation of the wisdom of government policy. In the absence of a violation of constitutional or statutory limits, the court must adhere to the doctrine of judicial restraint, especially when the challenged policy is aimed at the welfare of marginalized groups.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. legislative framework of tendupatta trade and petitioner's objective for pil challenging the executive order dated 03/11/2009. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
2. petitioner argues the 2009 order violates the 1964 act and is rendered repugnant by the 2006 forest rights act. (Para 12 , 13)
3. state contends the trade model is a valid socio-economic policy, cooperative societies are legitimate agents under the 1964 act, and the pil lacks merit. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
4. judiciary holds that policy decisions are immune from interference, noting the petition is barred by laches and lacks public interest. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

1. Heard Mr. Rohit Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State / respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Animesh Tiwari, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.4.

2. The petitioner who happens to be a retired Indian Forest Service officer has approached this Court in public interest seeking the following reliefs :

“10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue direction to the Respondents to fix purchase price of tendupatta in accordance with the provisions of Tendupatta Adhiniyam 1964, and pay the same to tendupatta SANGRAHAK, at the time of purchase.

10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue direction to Respondents to fix Notional purchase price for the year 2007 to 2021 and calculate the payable amount for tendu leaves sold by each individual Sangrahak separately for each year and compare it with the amount actually paid in cash, and the amount of short payment if any may be paid with interest to the beneficiary within a stipulated fixed period under the supervision of Hon'ble Court.

10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to annul/quash the impugned missive dated 03-11-2009 (Annexure P-2), in the interest of justice.

10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may be kindly pleased to call for the entire records in the possession of the respondents in respect of subject matter, for its kind perusal.

10.5 This Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue any other order/direction writ as it deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, including cost of the petition.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the then State Government of Madhya Pradesh enacted the Tendupatta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1964 to protect growers of tendupatta (other than the State Government) from the clutches of middlemen. After the creation of the State of Chhattisgarh, the new State Government adopted this Adhiniyam and renamed it as the Chhattisgarh Tendupatta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the “Adhiniyam, 1964 ”).

4. As per Section 2(d)(ii) of the Adhiniyam, 1964 a “grower” is a person on whose private land tendu leaves are grown. Section 4 provides for the appointment of an agent by the State Government. Section 5 of the Adhiniyam, 1964 stipulates that no one other than the State Government or its authorized agent can purchase or transport tendupatta within the State. Section 6 of the Adhiniyam, 1964 provides that the State Government shall appoint a Committee (मंत्रणा समिति) to recommend the “purchase price” every year.

5. Under Section 7 of the Adhiniyam, 1964, the State Government is obliged to fix the purchase price after considering the recommendations of the Committee, or otherwise, while taking into account the specified guidelines for fixing the purchase price of tendu leaves presented for sale by growers for each year. According to Section 9 of the Adhiniyam, 1964, the State Government or its authorized agent is bound to purchase tendu leaves presented at the Collection Centre by growers (other than the State Government) after paying the purchase price fixed under Section 7 of the Adhiniyam, 1964. Section 12 of the A

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 9528

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURRamesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, JKrishna Shukla – AppellantVersusState Of Chhattisgarh – RespondentWPPIL No. 113 of 2021

Cases Referred (5)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Krishna Shukla – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPPIL No. 113 of 2021