MATHUR, J. - (1.) THE instant writ petition is offshoot of the pending Public Interest Litigation popularly known as Mahendra Lodha's case (D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6073/93), wherein by order dated 20. 12. 2000 wide ranging directions were given to the State of Rajasthan and various local bodies in the matter of traffic management in the City of Jodhpur. Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to Para 13 of the order to show that certain places were identified as places for parking the vehicles which includes an open area near Mohanpura Overbridge. Taking the clue from the order, petitioner seeks directions to restrain the respondents from installing any statute over the said site i. e. left side of the Mohanpura Overbridge. It is averred that Sojati Gate is the main centre of the Jodhpur City from the point of view of traffic movement as also the commercial activities. it is further averred that considering the large movement of the people a Sulabh Complex was developed adjacent to the police control room. THEre existed in the form of steps a way to the Sulabh Complex. However, the same has been blocked by a recent construction. It is submitted that the respondents have taken a decision to instal a statue of late Prime Minister Shri Rajiv Gandhi. For that purpose a Circle and a platform has been constructed. THE said construction has covered a sizable area provided for parking. It has also completely blocked the steps which led to Sulabh Complex.
(2.) THE allegations made in the writ petition have been controverted by filing two separate affidavits one of Shri Rajendra Mishra the Secretary, Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur and another by Shri Sukh Ram Choudhary, Assistant Engineer, Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur. A preliminary objection has been raised as to the bonafides of the instant petition under that label of Public Interest Litigation. Another preliminary objection is that the construction of the statue commenced about four months back and continued in open day light, however, the petition has been filed as late as on 11. 09. 2003 only when the programme of the visit of Mrs. Sonia Gandhi, the President of the Indian National Congress to Jodhpur appeared in the News Papers. THE statue of late Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi is to be unveiled today i. e. on September 16, 2003 by the President of the Indian national Congress. Thus, there is a delay in filing the writ petition and the same deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. Mr. S. M. Mehta learned Advocate General appearing for the State after making the record straight on the factual aspect has described the instant public interest litigation as a publicity litigation. On the question of delay it is submitted by the learned Advocate General that a challenge to the decision should be much before the execution of the Project. The learned Advocate General has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Narmada Bachao Andolan vs. Union of India (1 ). In para 229 the Court has observed as follows:- " The Court, no doubt, has a duty to see that in the undertaking of a decision, no law is violated and people's fundamental rights are not transgressed upon except to the extent permissible under the Constitution. Even then any challenge to such a policy decision must be before the execution of the project is undertaken. Any delay in the execution of the project means overrun in costs and the decision to undertake a project, if challenged after its execution has commenced, should be thrown out at the very threshold on the ground of laches if the petitioner has the knowledge of such a decision and could have approached the Court at that time. Just because a a petition is termed as a PIL does not mean that ordinary principles applicable to litigation will not apply. Laches is one of them. " Reverting to the factual aspect it is averred that in order to solve the problem of parking at Sojati Gate, Jodhpur, a decision was taken to provide place for parking purposes and an area was demarcated by raising boundary wall having height of 1 ft. The place has been provided for entrance and exit of the vehicles. The area has been given on contract to one Atta Mohammad for a sum of Rs. 90,000/- per annum. As regards the subject construction, it is submitted that on the request of the Housing Board the matter was considered in depth and detail by the Urban Improvement Trust. On careful consideration of the entire material, the Urban Improvement Trust by its resolution conveyed its not objection for raising the subject construction. It is pointed out that there is a definite policy of the State Government in the matter of installation of the statute. As per the policy decision contained in Memorandum dated 23. 01. 1987 a Committee is constituted for considering the question of installation of a statute at a public place. The Committee is headed by the Division Commissioner and other public functionaries. In the instant case the committee headed by the Divisional Commissioner and the other officers granted permission for installation of the statue of late Shri Rajiv Gandhi at the subject location. While considering all these aspects it was ensured that the directions of the High Court in Mahendra Lodha's case is not violated. In order to appreciate the controversy a Map has been placed on record showing that on eastern side of the construction under dispute there is already wall of the present Police Control Room. Not even an Inch of land earmarked has been utilized for raising construction in question, nor the way to Sulabh Complex has been obstructed. On the contrary the approach for Sulabh Complex has made more convenient. The additional reason for choosing the place as given in the affidavit is that Late Shri Rajiv Gandhi delivered his last speech in Jodhpur and in order to pay homage and respect to the departed soul a decision was taken to instal the statue of late Shri Rajiv Gandhi. The present site was selected keeping in view the prominence of the place for the view of the people at large. Certain photographs have also been placed on record which depicts that the place earmarked for approaching the Mohanpura Bridge has not at all been affected in any manner whatsoever. It is also averred that so far as the Choraha over the Overbridge Clock Tower Scheme is concerned, at present no right turn is permissible from the Choraha and that for certain contentions raised in this regard is devoid of merit. On careful consideration of the entire material we are satisfied that in no way the orders of this Court in Mahendra Lodha's case has been flouted. Without expressing any aspersion on the conduct of the petitioner, we may observe that while it is true that the citizens have turned to the courts more and more for justice whenever there has been a legitimate grievance against the State, statutory authorities and other public organizations, unfortunately with the passage of time, things started taking different shapes inasmuch as the process has been often misused. The proceedings are being initiated in the name of public interest litigation for ventilating private disputes. Some time the political advantages are also taken. Mostly, they are publicity oriented. Thus, recently the Apex Court in Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee & Anr. vs. C. K. Rajan & Ors. (2), has given caution to the courts as follows:- " A balance was, therefore, required to be struck. The courts started exercising greater care and caution in the matter of exercise of jurisdiction of public interest litigation. " In Narmada Bachao Andolan's case (supra) the Apex Court has given a caution to the courts as follows:- " But the balloon should not be inflated so much that it bursts. Public interest litigation should not be allowed to degenerate to becoming publicity interest litigation or private inquisitiveness litigation. "
(3.) THUS, we conclude this order with the observation that while we are aware that people come to the court as a final resort to protect the rights and to secure privity in the public life, as such the courts exercising power under Article 226 of the constitution of India are constitutionally bound to entertain a petition filed by any interested person in the welfare of the people but it needs a caution that the balloon of the public interest litigation should not be inflated so much that it burst. In view of the aforesaid the writ petition is dismissed devoid of merit. .;