1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

“(i) That, the commercial activities going on in residential area be stopped forthwith and all such encroachment be declared illegal.

(ii) That, the respondents be directed to take action for removing the Godown, Service center and Office against the private respondents who are running commercial activities and causing nuisance in the residential area and same be immediately stopped.

(iii) That, respondents be directed to take immediate action against the erring officers who did not perform their duty which resulting huge mental and physical problem to the petitioner.

(iv) That, any other relief which this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit, with cost of the petition.”

2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the resident of Aapte Ki Payaga, Nai Sadak, Lashkar, Gwalior. The place of residence of the petitioner is having densely populated building on either side. Two brothers, namely, Yogesh Bansal and Deepak Bansal have made their godowns, service center and office to run commercial activity in the residential area where on daily basis loading and unloading of vehicles is taking place coupled with the fact that the labour and employees are also causing huge disturbance in the area. The commercial activities also take place in the night and the vehicles of the employees working in the establishments are parked in the lane and the daily loading vehicles also operate in the area causing extreme difficulties to the petitioner. When the petitioner requested the Bansal brothers to remove the nuisance, they hurled abuses and said that they shall not stop the commercial activities and accordingly, the petitioner has submitted a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior, SHO, Police Station Janakganj, Lashkar, Gwalior, Collector, Gwalior and Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Gwalior to take cognizance in the matter, but they have not done anything except sitting tight over the complaint.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. The basic contention of the petitioner is that in a residential area the private respondents are carrying out their commercial activities. It is not out of place to mention here that except mentioning that the commercial activities are being carried out in a residential area, no document has been filed to show that the area in question is a residential area only. Section 15 of the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (in short “Adhiniyam, 1973”) prescribes existing land use maps. Section 16 of the Adhiniyam, 1973 prescribes freezing of land use, on publication of the existing land use map under Section 15 of the Adhiniyam, 1973, no person shall be entitled to make change the use of any land or carry out any development of land for any purposes other than that indicated in the existing land use map without the permission in writing of the Director. Section 17 of the Adhiniyam, 1973 prescribes making of plan and shall indicate broadly the land use proposed in the planning area, allocate broadly areas or zones of land for residential, industrial, commercial or agricultural purpose. Section 18 of the Adhiniyam, 1973 prescribes publication of draft development plan and Section 19 of the Adhiniyam, 1973 prescribes sanction of development plans. Chapter 5 of the Adhiniyam, 1973 deals with specific power of State Government to control development and use of land. Section 26 of the Adhiniyam, 1973 prescribes prohibition of development without permission. It is not the case of the petitioner that under the Master Plan the area in which she is residing is a residential area and no commercial activity can be carried out. Furthermore, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.L. Chhajed and others Vs. State of M.P. and others by order dated 21/7/2015 passed in Writ Petition No.2500/2006 has held as under:-

“10 : The other aspect is that every construction has to be done in terms of the provisions of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. No building can be erected within the Municipal area without the building permission granted by the Corporation. If any permission is granted and if it is alleged that such grant of permission was not just and proper, remedy of making complaint in the matter of grant of building sanction is already provided in the. Even the State Government can be approached under the provisions of Section 299-A of theof 1956 in the said matter and after conducting enquiry as is deemed necessary, the State Government is required to pass appropriate orders. Even for that reason, exercise of power under Article 226 of the 5 Constitution of India by way of Public Interest Litigation is not warranted, in the first instance.

11 : Learned counsel for the petitioners has heavily placed reliance on the case of R.K.Mital and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others [(2012) 2 SCC 232] and contends that in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court such an act of the respondents was illegal and in such a case, the writ is required to be issued to the officials of respondents to take action against the private respondents. The case before the Apex Court was entirely different. There was a specific complaint of lack of adoption of uniform application of law which had resulted in violation of law by several authorities. Pointing out similarities resulting in failure to maintain the standard, the Apex Court rendered that decision. It held that once the land is earmarked for residential use in the master plan, it cannot be used for any other purpose. This decision will be of no avail in the facts of the present case. For, no material is placed on record to show that in the master plan, the particular area where the disputed buildings are erected has been earmarked as exclusively residential area. Secondly, there is specific provision of grant of permission for change of land use under the and it is the case of respondents that they have erected the building on the subject land after getting appropriate sanction from the competent authority. It appears that there was no occasion for the Authorities to enquire in the matter of complaints in that respect, unlike in the case before the Apex Court. Therefore, in our opinion, the petitioners will not get any support from the said decision in R.K. Mittal and others (supra), which is distinguishable.

12 : Yet, another aspect is that the petitioners have relied on certain representations which according to them have been made before the Authorities regarding the complaint. In one of the representation, it is found that one Arera Colony Vikas Rahawasi Samiti has filed a representation. In one of the writ petition, it was found that such type of Samiti had no locus to make complaint in respect of land use or even in the matter of development of the area. This Court in Writ Petition No.12/2007 (E-2 Rahawasi Sudhar Samiti, Bhopal and others Vs. The State of M.P. and others) has categorically held that such a complaint made by the Committee cannot be said to be a real Public Interest Litigation. Relying on the case of State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal [(2010) 3 SCC 402] and the principles underlying in the said decision of the Apex Court for testing whether a real Public Interest Litigation has been brought to the Court or not, this Court has restated the principles laid down by the Apex Court in para 10 of the said judgment, which reads thus :

“(1) The courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations.

(2) Instead of every individual judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives.

(3) The courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a P.I.L. (4) The court should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL. (5) The court should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition.

(6) The court should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions.

(7) The courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation.

(8) The court should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations.”

13: Keeping in mind these principles, if we test the allegations made by the petitioners, as has been analysed herein above, in absence of any documentary proof in respect of allegations rather the details in respect of those allegations in pleadings, it would be clear that all such allegations of the petitioners are unwarranted and not sustainable to make out a case for issuing a writ as claimed, that too in a Public Interest Litigation.”

5. Merely because some activities are causing difficulty to the petitioner is not sufficient to restrain the private respondents no.5 and 6 to carry out those activities.

6. So far as the representation made to the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior and SHO, Police Station Gwalior is concerned, the police has no jurisdiction to decide the question of land use. Even in a representation made to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Gwalior there is no averment that the commercial activities in the area is not permissible or the area in question is a residential area as per the land use. The application made to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Gwalior reads as under:-

"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

7. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner has approached the authorities by merely making a complaint that the commercial activities of respondents no.5 and 6 are causing hardship to the petitioner and her son. This cannot be a ground to restrain a person from carrying out any profession or business. Since the petition lacks basic averments, therefore, no case is made out for even issuing notice in the matter.

8. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed in limine.