Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a Review petition filed by a journalist challenging the dismissal of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the removal of a temple established in 2012 on Yashwant Niwas Road, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, a division bench of Vivek Rusia* and Gajendra Singh, JJ., dismissed the petition with a cost of ₹ 25,000/- on the petitioner and held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that he was a public-spirited individual or a social worker to justify filing a PIL.
In the instant matter, the petitioner filed a PIL seeking the removal of a temple established in 2012 at Yashwant Niwas Road, Indore, Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner only questioned the construction of the temple at Yashwant Niwas Road without challenging other allegedly illegal constructions. The Division Bench dismissed the PIL, citing the petitioner’s lack of credentials as a social worker and reliance on State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, (2010) 3 SCC 402. The Division Bench held that the issue of encroachment involved disputed facts, requiring evidence that could not be resolved through a writ petition.
The petitioner subsequently filed the present review petition and argued that the Division Bench misinterpreted the guidelines set by the Supreme Court in Balwant Singh Chaufal (Supra). The petitioner claimed that targeting one illegal construction in public interest is valid and did not require challenging all illegal religious structures.
However, the respondents contended that petitioner targeted only one temple, raising doubts about the bona fides and thereby, suggesting possible vested interests. The respondent argued that the issue in hand required a factual inquiry, which could not be conducted in a writ petition.
The Court noted that the petitioner is not a resident of nearby places of Yashwant Niwas. The Court noted that the selective targeting of one temple raises questions of motive. The Court stated that “if petitioner is aggrieved by illegal construction of religious places, then he ought to have challenged all the religious structures constructed either on government land or without permission.” The Court opined that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that he was a public-spirited individual or a social worker to justify filing a PIL.
The Court noted that a review petition is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record or addressing new evidence that was unavailable despite due diligence as established in Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Bank, (2006) 4 SCC 78 and State of W.B. v. Kamal Sengupta, (2008) 8 SCC 612.
The Court referred to Inderchand Jain v. Motilal, (2009) 14 SCC 663, where the Supreme Court dealt with the scope of interference and limitation of review and held that “re-appreciation of evidence and rehearing of case without there being any error apparent on the face of the record is not permissible in light of provisions as contained U/s 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.” The Court asserted that errors requiring detailed arguments or re-evaluation of evidence do not qualify for review.
The Court noted that the Supreme Court in Balwant Singh Chaufal (Supra) emphasised the need for PILs to be filed by individuals genuinely acting in public interest and not for personal or extraneous motives.
The Court held that
-
The petitioner failed to establish any error apparent on the face of the record.
-
The PIL lacked the bona fide necessary for public interest litigation, as the petitioner targeted only one temple without addressing other alleged illegal structures.
-
The Division Bench’s reliance on Balwant Singh Chaufal (Supra) was appropriate and aligned with established principles of law.
The Court dismissed the review petition and imposed a cost of ₹ 25,000/- on the petitioner to be paid to the Legal Aid Services Authority, Indore.
[Hemant Malviya v. State of M.P., 2025 SCC OnLine MP 779, Decided on 23-01-2025]
*Judgment by Justice Vivek Rusia
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Shri Ashish Choubey, Counsel for the Petitioner
Shri Sudeep Bhargava, Dy. Advocate General, Counsel for the Respondents