By Our Reporter
SHILLONG, March 25: The High Court of Meghalaya on Tuesday disposed of a public interest litigation (PIL) regarding the boundary wall of the PA Sangma Integrated Sports Complex, expressing the expectation that the newly constructed permanent wall will remain intact and that the sports complex will continue to function without hindrance.
The Bench, comprising Chief Justice IW Mukherji and Justice Wanlura Diengdoh, dismissed the petition filed by Amit R. Marak, stating that there was no complaint suggesting that the sports complex was unable to function due to any government inaction.
“Unnecessary, time of the Court has been consumed by this litigation by a busy body,” the division bench remarked.
The court further observed that if every alleged act of omission or commission by the government were to become the subject of a PIL, neither the government nor the judiciary would be able to function effectively.
It reiterated that PILs are not meant for individuals with no direct grievance and noted that, in this case, no injury had been caused to any person.
The judgment highlighted that a temporary structure had previously collapsed and was repaired multiple times.
An earlier PIL was entertained by the court, leading to orders for repairs. However, the boundary wall collapsed again, prompting another petition. The court noted that this fresh petition was yet another complaint about the wall’s breakdown.
The state government, represented by Additional Senior Government Advocate AH Kharwanlang, and Dr. N. Mozika, Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI), representing the contractor, submitted that the collapsed wall was temporary and was damaged multiple times due to heavy rainfall and flooding. However, a permanent boundary wall has since been constructed, and there is no longer any issue with the stadium or sports complex.
The petitioner’s counsel, however, argued that the construction was carried out without a proper technical evaluation.
The court cautioned against the misuse of PILs, stating that the jurisdiction should not be used to challenge every alleged government fault, failure, or dereliction of duty. It clarified that if an individual is genuinely aggrieved, they should seek redress through regular litigation.
The division bench further noted that the High Court should only be approached in cases of grave dereliction of duty affecting the public at large, particularly when those affected lack education, legal awareness, or economic means to seek justice on their own.