The Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case Bhattulla Jain v. State Of MP & Ors observed and has rejected the plea moved seeking a direction to the Chief Minister of the state to stop making any promises to the public due to alleged shabby financial condition of the State exchequer.
The Division bench comprising of Justice S.A Dharmadhikari and Justice Hirdesh in the case observed and has stated that the said court did not find any reason to entertain the petition and the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed, thus, the petitioner is at the liberty to approach this Court again by placing on record cogent documents which substantiates the grievance raised by the petition in the instant petition and not solely on the basis of newspaper cuttings.
In the preset case, Bhattulla Jain, who being the resident of Barwarni district moved the plea wherein stating that he is a Tax Practitioner by profession and also a social worker. It has also been stated by him that the State budget is spent on paying salary, pension and interest and the government is in debt of more than its annual budget.
The court observed that the said situation is to dire that the government is taking a loan every month in order to pay the interest by mortgaging the properties, which being the heritage of the state. Further, the court observed and has also referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the case State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Others, wherein it has been held by the court that before entertaining a PIL, the Courts must prima-facie satisfy itself of the credentials of the petitioner, the correctness of the contents thereof and the special public interest involved in it. The bench also referred to some of the High Court judgments which include of Vikas Yadav v. State of M.P., wherein the court held that there being no PIL can be filed on the basis of newspaper reports and also looking to the antecedents of the petitioner and the writ petitions were not entertained
Accordingly, the court rejected the plea. The counsel, Advocate Abhishek Tugnawat appeared for the petitioner.
The counsel, Anand Soni, AAG represented the State.