Cuttack: Orissa high court has dismissed a PIL questioning the rejection of land mutation applications in Bhubaneswar, holding that the proceedings were an attempt to give a ‘colour’ of public interest to what was essentially a personal grievance.A division bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Chittaranjan Dash, in an order passed on Aug 13 and made available online on Tuesday, imposed a total fine of Rs 50,000 on the petitioners — Bharat Behera, Rashmita Muduli, Sunita Choudhury and Janak Panda.The petitioners had alleged that the Bhubaneswar tehsildar and additional tehsildar were arbitrarily rejecting mutation applications concerning properties in the city. They cited cases where mutation applications were allegedly rejected because the properties were jointly held by several co-sharers, arguing that such joint ownership could not by itself justify rejection.The bench, however, found that the PIL did not meet the basic requirements of a public interest proceeding. It took note of the state’s submission that the petitioner had himself approached the revenue authorities seeking mutation of his name in the record of rights (RoR) but the application was rejected.Finding no “elements or ingredients pertaining to a public interest litigation”, the Bench dismissed the petition imposing fine of Rs 50,000.The Bench pointed out that the Odisha Survey and Settlement Act, 1958, and the rules framed under it provide a statutory remedy against an order of the tehsildar. Instead of pursuing that remedy, the petitioner approached the high court through a PIL. “Public interest litigation (PIL) cannot be permitted to be used as a tool to settle its personal score,” the judges observed.The judges said PIL is a judge-made remedy intended to enable public-spirited persons to bring to the court’s notice violations of constitutional or statutory obligations affecting the larger public. Such litigation, they said, must be pursued for the “common good” and not to secure an individual advantage.The high court further observed that entertaining the petition could indirectly affect orders passed by revenue authorities in exercise of powers conferred under the statute. “Whether the decision is not in conformity with the statutory provision or does not appear to be rational and/or reasonable can be gone into in different fora but not in the garb of the PIL,” the court said.It held that the petitioners had attempted to “offset the orders passed on their application for mutation” by taking shelter under the PIL jurisdiction.lalmohanpatnaik2019@gmail.com