PIL for water body protection dismissed for lack of locus standi and vague, unsubstantiated allegations.

The petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) asserting that Lake Budhan Sagar, a public water body of approximately 500 acres, was being destroyed by illegal encroachments, unauthorized filling, and illicit mining in its catchment area

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for the demarcation of the lake, removal of encroachments, and beautification

Procedurally, the court examined previous revenue department records which showed that while a complaint of encroachment had been investigated by the Sub-Divisional Officer and Tehsildar in 2015-16, those authorities found the allegations of new illegal sales or fresh encroachments to be unsubstantiated, noting that some existing structures had been in place for over a decade

1. Whether the petitioner has sufficient locus standi to invoke the extraordinary public interest jurisdiction of the High Court

2. Whether the state authorities failed to discharge their statutory obligations to protect the lake from encroachment and environmental degradation

The court primarily applied the principles of locus standi in Public Interest Litigation as articulated in Surendra Pratap Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others, which mandates that a petitioner must provide concrete evidence of their previous social work in the relevant field rather than making self-serving claims of being a "social worker"

The court applied the standard for Article 226 writ jurisdiction, which precludes the adjudication of vague allegations or disputed questions of fact in the absence of cogent evidence of a statutory failure

Regarding locus standi, the bench noted that the petitioner provided no material evidence of his involvement in social work related to water body preservation, failing the test established in Surendra Pratap Singh

The court observed that the petitioner’s claims were general and lacked specific identification of the encroachers or the specific dates of the alleged illegal activities

Judicial review revealed that the Revenue Authorities had already conducted spot inspections and issued protective orders in 2011 and 2015, which included directions for fencing and the prohibition of commercial cultivation to preserve the lake’s public character

The court reasoned that since the authorities were already performing their duties and the petitioner had not demonstrated a contemporaneous failure of these statutory obligations, judicial intervention was unwarranted

The court held that PIL jurisdiction cannot be exercised to adjudicate vague or unsubstantiated apprehensions

The court found no merit in the specific petition as the record showed that the state had already taken measures to safeguard the lake's public Nistar rights and ecological status