Sandeep Karihar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (PIL) No. 94 of 2016 Sandeep Karihar S/o Late Shree N.P. Karihar, Aged About 30 Years R/o B 90, Illrd Floor, Ganesh Hights, Rajkishore Nagar, Chowk, Torwa, Road, Bilaspur Distirct Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Thorugh The Secretary, Department, Of Forest, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. The Vijaya Vinod Kurre, W/o Shri Vinod Kurre, Posted As Divisional Forest Officer, D.F.O. Forest Division, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattigarh

3. Divisional Forest Officer, ( D.F.O. ) Forest Division Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

4. The Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest, Aranya Bhawan, Medical College Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh

5. Chief Conservator Of Forest, Bilaspur, Division, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

6. D.R. Suryavanshi S/o Late Shri Surit Ram Suryavanshi, Aged About 63 Years Retired As V.R.S. Accountant R/o Village Brikona, P.O. Birkona, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

7. Income Tax Officer, Ward No 2(2), Vyapar Vihar Rod Mahima Complex, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Anish Tiwari, Advocate.

For Respondent/State : Shri Y.S. Thakur, Additional Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Deepak Gupta, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Agrawal Order on Board Per Deepak Gupta, Chief Justice 15/11/2016 1.

This writ petition is an abuse of the process of very concept of 'Public Interest Litigation. 'Public Interest Litigation' means litigation where larger public interest is involved. It does not mean 'Personal Interest Litigation; it does not mean 'Publicity Interest Litigation'; it does not mean

'Paisa Interest Litigation'; and it does not mean 'Political Interest Litigation'. 2.

In this case, the Petitioner who claims to a Journalist and Bureau Chief of daily newspaper 'Swaraj Bhaskar', instead of raising the matter in the newspaper has raised an issue that Respondent No.6 has been paid excess amount of about Rs.50,000/-.

3.

We are not commenting on the correctness of the allegation. If overpayment has been made, the Petitioner may follow other remedies. The time of the High Court cannot be wasted in entertaining the 'Public Interest Litigation' in these trivial matters which are obviously in the nature Personal Interest Litigation.

4.

In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Deepak Gupta) (Sanjay Agrawal) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE Anu