A.K. Sharma vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Heard.

The present petition is styled as pro bono publico on the background of the fact that in the coal mine areas of Dipika, Gevra, Kusmunda, Manikpur, Budbud, Pali, Bhelwadih, Chhurakachhar and Bankimogra which are under control of SECL (respondents No. 4 to 12) illegal theft of coal is being allowed to be committed and illegal coal depots are being operated. It is further submitted that vehicles are being operated during dark and no control is done by respondents No. 4 to 13 and they are in hand in gloves with the police administration. Therefore, the state authority may be directed to arrest the persons committing theft of coal.

Learned counsel for respondents No. 4 to 12 would vehemently opposes the argument and would submit that no particulars have been given and only on vague information the petition has been filed. She further submits that under the circumstances the Public Interest Litigation of the said nature is liable to be dismissed.

Learned State counsel and counsel for union of India also supports the argument of respondents No. 4 to 12.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleading in this petition. The pleadings show that only omnibus allegations have been made by the petitioner that in certain coal mine which are situated at different areas theft is being committed in connivance with SECL and police authority. The petition would also show that no particulars or any incident have been shown for which whether any report was made and to demonstrate no action has been taken. It is only general allegations which have been attributed in the pleading as PIL. Therefore, on vague and half baked information the court cannot take cognizance. The petitioner of the PIL at least was required to demonstrate by any positive facts and prima facie it was required to be established that on a particular date certain incident had happened and for which legal action was ontemplated and despite notice and report no action was taken. It appears on reading of the petition, it is a chance petition. The petitioner opted to file the petition on the basis of newspaper report alone. It is trite law that without any proof or minimum relevant facts in support of any allegation, the PIL cannot be entertained.

In view of this, we are not inclined to entertain this PIL, the petitioner may approach the police authority to avail remedy which is available to him under the common law.

Accordingly, the PIL is dismissed at the motion stage.