Public Interest Litigations must have clear factual bases to be valid.

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

1. This is a wholly misconceived petition filed in the nature of Pubic Interest Litigation seeking the reliefs in the following manner:-

“(ii) Your Lordship may be pleased to giving direction to the respondent no.2 for stop this illegal construction and demolish said illegal construction which was made by the present respondent no.3 on the plot no.9(S.No.3) in the interest of the Justice.

(iii) Your Lordship may be pleased to giving stay on said illegal construction till to the final hearing of said petition.

(iv) Your Lordship may be pleased to grant further relief as deemed just in fact and circumstances of the case in the interest of the Justice.”

2. We may note that the present petition has been filed by a person who claims to be a businessman doing business of Mandap Decoration at Bhabhar, Taluka: Bhabhar, District: Banaskantha. The contention in the writ petition is that deceased respondent No.3 Darji Anadiben Karmashibhai, was the owner of Plot No.9 situated at Bhabhar, Taluka: Bhabhar, District: Banaskantha and he had constructed certain shops based on the revised plan.

3. The further statement is that the respondent No.3 had demolished his construction on Plot No. 9 and started new construction instead of old construction. The said Plot No. 9 is situated on the main road passing from Bhabhar to Karela road, which is being used by members of public.

4. An RTI application was filed by the petitioner before the Chief Officer, Bhabhar Nagarpalika demanding certain information with respect to the subject construction. Another application dated 19.12.2024 has been moved by the petitioner before the Chief Officer Bhabhar Nagarpalika raising the issue that the constructions are illegal with the request to stop the same after investigation in accordance with the rules and regulations. The contention is that till today nothing has been done by the competent authority and in the meantime, the RTI application moved by the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 07.12.2024 passed by the respondent No.2.

5. We may further note that in Paragraph No.4.10 of the writ petition, the petitioner has brought on record the order dated 12.02.2015 regularizing the constructions in question by the Nagarpalika, Bhabhar.

6. Be that as it may, pertinent is to note that there are three private respondents No.3.1 to 3.4, who have been arraigned as heirs of deceased Darji Anadiben Karmashibhai impleaded as respondent No.3. As per own case of the petitioner, the deceased respondent No.3 (original owner) had ownership rights over Plot No.9. The contention in the writ petition that Plot No.9 is situated on the main road and the public road is being utilized for using the construction is as vague as it could be. There is nothing on record which would indicate as to out of four respondents herein, who has raised construction. Vague assertions that the constructions are being raised by the respondent No.3, who is not alive, cannot be appreciated to mean that illegal constructions are being raised by the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.3. Moreover, as per own case of the petitioner, the constructions have been regularized vide order dated

12.02.2015.

7. In this situation, the present Public Interest Litigation is nothing but a misconceived petition and is liable to be dismissed as such. No order as to costs.