Public Interest Jurisdiction Not a Substitute for Private Litigation: Karnataka High Court Declines PIL

Karnataka High Court, presided over by Chief Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice K.V. Aravind, dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by six individuals alleging encroachment of a public road and misuse of elementary school premises in Chikkaballapura District. The petitioners sought development of a purportedly 100-year-old road and recovery of public utility assets allegedly taken over by private parties.

The petitioners, residents of neighboring villages, claimed the road in question, extending 1.5 km between Balakundahalli and Bikalahalli, was historically used by locals and indispensable for access to their villages. They accused a respondent, G. Suresh, of encroaching on this road, digging trenches to obstruct access, and illegally appropriating an elementary school and public borewell for personal use. The petition also sought nullification of interim injunction orders issued in two civil suits filed by Suresh, arguing they restricted public movement and led to unauthorized changes in public properties.

The court observed that the petitioners were parties to the ongoing civil suits, with some of them named as defendants in disputes related to Survey Nos. 95/1 and 95/12, the same parcels of land mentioned in the PIL. Noting the overlap of subject matter between the PIL and the civil suits, the bench held that the public interest jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to resolve private disputes.

"The public interest jurisdiction is a special jurisdiction. It cannot be exercised in routine manner unless there is a genuine public interest subsisting in the controversy," the court observed. The court emphasized that PIL is a constitutional remedy designed for larger societal interests and not a backdoor entry to contest issues pending before civil courts.

The court noted that the claims in the PIL were intertwined with private land disputes and included demands for setting aside orders issued by the civil court. Such requests, the bench clarified, fell outside the purview of public interest litigation. The judgment stressed that public interest remedies should not undermine civil court procedures or serve as an alternate forum for individual grievances.

"The present public interest petition is far from bona fide. When civil suits are pending, and the dispute also involves private rights asserted by one party and denied by another, PIL jurisdiction is not warranted," the court stated.

Dismissing the PIL, the court held that the petition lacked merit and was not maintainable. It declined to entertain the petitioners' plea for relief under the guise of public interest. The bench underscored the importance of maintaining the distinction between private disputes and genuine public interest matters in judicial proceedings.

Date of Decision: November 27, 2024