Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 6280
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Vivek Singh Thakur, Ranjan Sharma, JJ
Rita Chaudhary – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. & others – Respondent
CWPIL No. 106 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R.L. Chaudhary
For the Respondents: Anup Rattan, Rakesh Dhaulta, Sandeep Dutta, Shrawan Dogra, Devender K. Sharma, Tejasvi Dogra
Judicial restraint is necessary unless compelling evidence shows significant misconduct by institutions protecting their assets.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Public Interest Litigation - Accusations against educational institutions for illegal construction affecting local ecology and state resources - Authorities shown to have inaction in response to complaints, leading to petition by local governing body for judicial intervention. (Paras 1-6)
(B) Jurisdiction - Court’s discretion in PILs - Court should not restrain legitimate actions by institutions protecting their assets unless compelling evidence shows significant misconduct. (Paras 39-41)
(C) Respondents were found to be executing necessary protective constructions within their leased land, in compliance with prior orders from the National Green Tribunal and without causing obstruction to natural water flow. (Paras 33-37)
Facts of the case:
The petition alleged illegal actions by an educational institution regarding construction work in a riverbed, ostensibly diverting water flow and causing ecological harm, impacting surrounding villages and public property.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner's claims were unfounded, concluding that the institution was acting legally to protect its property.
Issues: The main issues centered around the legitimacy of construction activities conducted by the educational institution and the responsibility of local authorities to act on complaints.
Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that judicial restraint is necessary unless there is compelling evidence against institutions in protective actions.
Result: Petition dismissed, highlighting lack of merit.
Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge
Present petition has been preferred as a Public Interest Litigation by Pradhan Gram Panchayat Sayanh of District Mandi, seeking direction to respondents/Authorities to take action against respondents No.10 and 11 i.e. DAV Public School, Dadour and its Principal in terms of Notification dated 18th August, 2022 (Annexure P- 2) issued by the State Government and to impose heavy penaltyP upon them for causing loss to State Exchequer as well as ecology.
2 Allegation against respondents No.10 and 11 is that they have started digging 70 feet pit in the middle of the Kansa Khad near Kansa Bridge in District Mandi for constructing a huge wall which would result into diversion of flow of Kansa Khad resultantly causing flood to villages Sayanh, Naki, Dadotur and Tawan, Tehsil Balh, District Mandi and also causing damage to Government High School, Government Senior Secondary School, Dispensary, Panchayat Bhawan and houses of thousands of people of above referred villages and also to two temples i.e. Shani Temple and Shiv Temple.
3 According to petitioner, despite approaching and making the complaints against respondents No.10 and 11 about their illegal construction of huge retaining wall in the middle of Kansa Khad, no iaction has been taken till filing of petition by the respondents- Authority.
4 It has been submitted by petitioner that respondents No.10 and 11 after sanction of lease of land in their favour are running DAV School, Dadour since the last about 15 years peacefully, adjacent to Kansa Khad, but in November, 2024 they diverted the flow of Kansa Khad as per their own wishes and started digging in the middle of Kansa Khad under Kansa Chowk Bridge a 70 feet pit in order to construct a huge retaining wall, whereupon petitioner and residents of the area, on 24.11.2024, reported about illegal Pact of respondents No.10 and 11 to the respondents-Authorities but no action was taken despite visit of Authorities on the spot and thereafter, respondents No.10 and 11 again started construction work in the middle of Kansa Khad in order to grab Government land by diverting the flow of Kansa Khad in illegal and arbitrary manner.
5 According to petitioner,t act of respondents No.10 and 11 would also cause damage to playground, wrestling akhara and dumping site of the Municipal Committee Ner Chowk resulting into impermissible loss to the general public. Respondents No.10 and 11 have not taken any permission from the Revenue Department, Forest Department, Pollution Control Board, State Geologist as well as Mining Department and despite that Authorities are not taking any action against them.
6 According to petitioner, illegal arbitrary act of respondents No.10 and 11 warrants action against these respondents in terms of Notification dated 18.8.2022 issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, but on failure of concerned Authority to take any action, petitioner is constrained to file present writ petition.
7 Respondents No.10 and 11 have filed a detailed response to the petition stating that petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands and has concealed the material facts and narrated the false and wrong facts in petition, with further submission that the Government of Himachal Pradesh executed a 99 years leaseP deed dated 5.2.2009 in favour of Dayanand Anglo Vedic Public School, Ner Chowk, with respect to land comprised in Khata Khatauni Number 376/1105, bearing Khasra No. 1329/1241 measuring 5-0-0 bighas situated at Muhal Dadour/225 Mauza, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi HP for a consideration of Rs.1,37,717/- per annum rent. Whereas, area of Kansa Khad is comprised in Khata tNo. 432 min, 404 bearing Khasra No. 1309/1216/2 and Khata No. 432 min bearing Khasra No. 1308/1216 situated in Muhal Dadour, District Mandi. To substantiate the aforesaid plea, copy of lease deed and jamabandi for the year 2019-20 have been placed on record as Annexures R-1 and R-2 to the reply.
8 It is further case of respondents No.10 and 11 that
