SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, a resident of Mohali, Punjab, seeks to file the present public interest litigation against the State of Haryana claiming that he is an RTI activist and is, thus, entitled to do so. The petitioner by the present petition seeks a direction against the respondents to provide land free of costs for the project of Chandigarh - Yamuna Nagar Rail Line on the basis of parity in the case of Rohtak - Hansi Rail Project. The petitioner has averred that there is uneven development in the State of Haryana. The pace of development in the Rohtak area is more and seeks to highlight how certain projects have been cleared quickly while the project in question has been pending for alleged lack of finances. It is, thus, his say that there should be only one model of development across the State and this Court should intervene to ensure that the allocation of funds by the State for development of different areas of the State should be equal, failing which it amounts to discrimination and, thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) WE had at the threshold put to learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter in question is purely within a policy domain. How development takes place in a State, which area has to be given priority, which project has to be handled in which manner and on priority or otherwise and how funds allocation takes place are all matters within the executive domain. In fact, we put to learned counsel that he seeks us to play a role of the Finance Minister of the State of Haryana by reallocating the budget. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, persisted in arguing the matter and has taken us through the petition and argued at length. In our view, the petition is based on a complete misconception of very notion of separation of powers which exists between the executive and the judicial domains. The country has adopted a democratic method of election of Government which in turn reflects the aspirations of the people. It is for the State Government to allocate funds and decide how development has to take place in the State. This is not a job for the Court to do whose job is to interpret and enforce the law. Merely because the petitioner is an RTI activist has not given him a licence to file all kinds of petitions, not even being a resident of the State of Haryana. It appears that this is a proxy political battle rather than anything else.
(3.) WE feel it is the time when an end should be put to such kind of frivolous PILs which have different motives and consume precious judicial time. Cost is, thus, the only panacea.;