TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses writ application for lack of merit and petitioner's locus standi. Emphasizes preventing PIL misuse.</h1> <h3>Ram Narain Sharma Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.</h3> Ram Narain Sharma Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Alleged encroachment on government land.2. Locus standi of the petitioner.3. Definition and misuse of Public Interest Litigation (PIL).Judgment Summary:1. Alleged Encroachment on Government Land:The petitioner claimed encroachment on land recorded in the name of Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) and other public properties. The petitioner sought removal of encroachments and rectification of revenue records. The respondents, including JDA, denied these allegations, stating no documentary evidence supported the claims. The court noted that the petitioner failed to detail the alleged encroachers and specific areas of encroachment, rendering the claims unsubstantiated.2. Locus Standi of the Petitioner:The JDA questioned the petitioner's locus standi, arguing that the petitioner had no direct connection to the land in dispute and had not included the alleged encroachers as parties to the writ proceedings. The court emphasized the necessity of locus standi, referencing the Janata Dal case, which mandates that only those with bona fide interest and sufficient standing can initiate PIL.3. Definition and Misuse of Public Interest Litigation (PIL):The court extensively discussed the concept of PIL, citing definitions from Strouds Judicial Dictionary and Black's Law Dictionary. It reiterated that PIL should be used to address genuine public grievances and not for personal gain or oblique motives. The court highlighted the need for careful scrutiny to prevent misuse by 'busy bodies' or those seeking publicity. The court concluded that the petition lacked merit, was based on disputed facts unsuitable for adjudication under Article 226, and appeared to be motivated by personal interests rather than genuine public concern.Conclusion:The writ application was dismissed due to lack of merit, absence of detailed material facts, and failure to establish the petitioner's locus standi. The court emphasized the importance of preventing misuse of PIL for personal or political motives. No costs were awarded.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
