AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)
The present Public Interest Litigation has been filed by a practicing Lawyer, who appears in person, challenging the notification dated 14.05.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby, the Office of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wild Life), Himachal Pradesh, has been shifted from Shimla to the Office building of CPD KFW Project Office, Dharamshala, District Kangra. The Office of CPD, KFW, Dharamshala has further been shifted to the vacated Office of CF Wildlife Dharamshala, District Kangra. Thus, in sum and substance, the Offices of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Wild Life), Himachal Pradesh and the Office of CF Wildlife, Dharamshala will be housed together in one premises at Dharamshala. The challenge, as such, is sought to be justified on the issue of locus standi that it is in the interest of general public and the shifting of the Office is a political decision and liable to be quashed. Reference has also been made to an earlier instance, when allegedly on account of political influence, the Office of Chief Conservator of Forest (Wild Life) was shifted from Shimla to Hamirpur in 1998.
An argument has been sought to be raised that there are various Sanctuaries, National Parks, Forest Conversations and Zoos in Shimla District and therefore shifting them, which are under the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, thus would hamper the functioning as such, at Dharamshala, which is at a distance of more than 230 Kilometers.
The State has also filed its response that it is a policy decision and no arbitrariness has been shown and the locus standi as such is also questioned. The decision of shifting was taken after due consideration by the Council of Ministers (Cabinet), a copy of the Cabinet memo along-with approval is annexed as Annexure R2/I, in support of the same. A plea has also been taken by the State that for de-congestion of the Offices/Buildings in Shimla, the Government has taken a decision to shift as many as 07 other Offices also from Shimla to various stations, including Dharamshala. It has also been averred that an International Level Zoological Park has to be constructed at Bankhandi, Dehra District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, namely ‘Durgesharnay Kangra International Zoological Park’, which is about 40 Kilometers from Dharamshala, therefore, it would be feasible for the Office of Chief Conservator of Forest (Wild Life), H.P. to supervise and maintain the affairs of the constructions of the said Park from Dharamshala.
Reference has also been made to the Pong Dam Lake Wildlife Sanctuary located near Dharamshala, which is one of the major wetland sanctuaries in India and thus that it would be feasible for the Chief Conservator of Forest (Wild Life), H.P. to supervise and maintain the affairs of said sanctuary at Dharamshala easily. It has further been averred that State Wildlife Training Institute is also proposed to be established in the complex of ‘Durgesharnay Kangra International Zoological Park’. Further, it has been averred that in Himachal Pradesh, there are about 28 Wildlife Sanctuaries, 05 National Parks and 05 Conversation Reserves. It has also been averred that Dharamshala is more suitable place than Shimla to maintain the affairs of all these Sanctuaries, National Parks and Conservation Reserves which can be effectively managed from Dharamshala. It has been averred that the Office has already been shifted and had started functioning at Dharamshala.
It is also pertinent to mention that the petition was listed for the first time on 11.07.2025, i.e., almost after two months of the issuance of the notification (14.05.2025). It has been averred by the State that almost equal space has been provided to the Office of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Wild Life) at Dharmashala as was available at Shimla, since the KFW Project is going to end in March, 2026. There is paucity of space for the Office which was functioning in the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Head of Forest Forces) at Shimla, therefore, the vacated space shall, thus, be used by the various branches of the Forest Department. It has been further averred that out of the allocated funds of Rs.45 Lakhs, Rs.12 Lakhs stands utilized for updating the Office infrastructures and repairs etc.
Rejoinder has also been filed reiterating the plea taken by the petitioner in the present petition repelling the stand of the State that the petitioner is an Advocate and has been appearing in person and it has been reiterated that there is no public interest and exigency in shifting the Office and it is only under the political influence as such.
In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the present petition is not maintainable in the form of a Public Interest Litigation in the absence of locus standi. The petition has been filed by an Advocate and it has been held by this Court, time and again, that the Public Interest Litigation is meant to be invoked for the purposes of down trodden people and to give opportunity to the people who are not in a position to approach this Court and it is a discretion as such which is not liable to be misused. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Janata Dal vs. H.P. Chowdhary and others (1992) 4 SCC 305, which was a case pertaining to the purchase of Bofors gun and the said public interest petition had been entertained and the proceedings had been quashed by the Delhi High Court. Resultantly, the matter had been carried to the Apex Court and the petition had been dismissed by allowing the appeal and holding that the locus standi as such has to be kept in the mind of the party to the litigation requiring public action, the character of the litigation to ensure that somebody is a mere busybody or a meddlesome interloper and does not take advantage. The relevant Paragraphs of the said judgment read as follows:-
“62.Be that as it may, it is needless to emphasise that the requirement of locus standi of a party to a litigation is mandatory; because the legal capacity of the party to any litigation whether in private or public action in relation to any specific remedy sought for has to be primarily ascertained at the threshold.
63.The traditional syntax of law in regard to locus standi for a specific judicial redress, sought by an individual person or determinate class or identifiable group of persons, is available only to that person or class or group of persons who has or have suffered a legal injury by reasons of violation of his or their legal right or a right legally protected, the invasion of which gives rise to action ability within the categories of law. In a private action, the litigation is bipolar; two opposed parties are locked in a confrontational controversy which pertains to the determination of the legal consequences of past events unlike in public action. The character of such litigation is essentially that of vindicating private rights, proceedings being brought by the persons in whom the right personally inhere or their legally constituted representatives who are thus obviously most competent to commence the litigation.
64.In contrast, the strict rule of locus standi applicable to private litigation is relaxed and a broad rule is evolved which gives the right of locus standi to any member of the public acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in instituting an action for redressal of public wrong or public injury, but who is not a mere busy body or a meddlesome interloper; since the dominant object of PIL is to ensure observance of the provisions of the Constitution or the law which can be best achieved to advance the cause of community or disadvantaged groups and individuals or public interest by permitting any person, having no personal gain or private motivation or any other oblique consideration but acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in maintaining an action for judicial redress for public injury to put the judicial machinery in motion like actio popularize of Roman Law whereby any citizen could bring such an action in respect of a public delict.
… … ...109. It is thus clear that only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but not a person for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. Similarly, a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL brought before the court for vindicating any personal grievance, deserves rejection at the threshold.”
In such circumstances, the order passed was set aside and it was held that there are long queues in the Courts and people are waiting for getting their grievances redressed and a mere busybody or a meddlesome interloper having no public interest cannot be permitted to knock the doors of the Courts and create a situation of genuine litigant. The case is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case on the issue of locus standi.
Similar view was also taken by the Apex Court in Vinoy Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others (2001) 4 SCC 734, wherein number of criminal cases had been transferred for disposal by the District & Sessions Judge to the Additional District & Sessions Judge. Resultantly, order passed by the High Court, in dismissing the writ on the ground of locus standi, was upheld. The relevant Paragraphs of the said judgment are being reproduced here-in-below:-
“2.Generally speaking, a person shall have no locus standi to file a writ petition if he is not personally affected by the impugned order or his fundamental rights have neither been directly or substantially invaded nor is there any imminent danger of such rights being invaded or his acquired interests have been violated ignoring the applicable rules. The relief under Article 226 of the constitution is based on the existence of a right in favour of the person invoking the jurisdiction. The exception to the general rule is only in cases where the writ applied for is a writ of habeas- corpus or quo warranto or filed in public interest. It is a matter of prudence, that the court confines the exercise of writ jurisdiction to cases where legal wrong or legal injuries caused to a particular person or his fundamental rights are violated, and not to entertain cases of individual wrong or injury at the instance of third party where there is an effective legal aid organisation which can take care of such cases. Even in cases filed in public interest, the court can exercise the writ jurisdiction at the instance of a third party only when it is shown that the legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determined class of persons is, by reason or poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the court for relief.”
On the merits of the case also, we find the argument raised that it is a political decision, to be without any basis. Perusal of the Memorandum for Consideration of Council of Ministers would go on to show that the Chief Minister who is the Minister-in-Charge had shown his desire to shift the Wildlife Wing of the Himachal Pradesh Forest Department to Dharamshala, District Kangra while noting that the said Office had occupied approximately 275 square meters space in the main Office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Head of Forest Forces).
It was noticed that there are 29 Officers/Officials who are working in the Wild Life Wing of the Forest Department at Shimla and various branches/Offices of the Forest Department are functioning in a congested areas which are not adequate for proper functioning. It was also noticed that the Office space vacated by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Wild Life) Wing will be used for housing various branches of the Forest Department of Himachal Pradesh, which was being run in an inadequate space in the Office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Head of Forest Forces), Himachal Pradesh and the vacated residences of the staff of Wildlife Wing shall be allotted to the Officers/Officials of the Forest Department at Shimla. It has been mentioned that the major sanctuary area of Pong Dam (a wetland), Dharamshala and Chamba is located near Dharamshala and the Project of the ‘Durgesharnay Kangra International Zoological Park’ at Bankhandi is under construction, which would take 4-5 years time for its completion, therefore, it would be better to shift the said Office to Dharamshala so that the construction work of the Zoo at Dharamshala is properly supervised. A sum of Rs.25 Lakhs was also proposed to be allotted for the special repair of the vacant quarters. In such circumstances, the said decision was thus approved by the Council of Ministers and given effect. This decision had been taken by the State Government keeping in view the accommodation, lack of space in the main Office of the Forest Department and the fact that there was some space available at Dharamshala and it was falling under the ambit of the policy decision of the State Government which would not be open to the judicial review.
A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in Nand Lal & another vs. State of H.P. and others, 2014 (2) Him L.R. (DB) 982 in similar circumstances, regarding the shifting of a Government College at a particular place at 19 Kilometers, had dismissed the Public Interest Litigation by keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Manohar Lal Sharma vs. Union of India and another (2013)6 SCC 616; Mr. Asha Sharma vs. Chandigarh Administration and others, 2011 AIR SCW 5636 and Adikanda Biswal And Ors. vs Bhubaneswar Development Authority, 2012 (11) SCC 731.
Thus, keeping in view the above, we are of the considered opinion that apart from the locus standi, once justifiable reasons have been given before the Cabinet and acted upon by the Minister-in-Charge, who happens to be the Chief Minister of the State, it cannot be said that it was a political decision, as such. Therefore, it is appropriate that this Court now would not substitute the view of the competent authority and thus there is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed accordingly.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.