Back
2017 Supreme(Bom) 2617
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
MANJULA CHELLUR, M.S. SONAK, JJ.
RAJU HAMIRMAL SHAH - Appellant
Vs.
TAHSILDAR, THANE - Respondent
Public Interest Litigation No. 19 of 2017
Decided On : 03-11-2017
For the Petitioner:Sushil Shukla, Advocate.
For the Respondent: P.G. Sawant, AGP.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for credibility and bonafides in filing a Public Interest Litigation, and the consequences of abuse of judicial process.
Headnote:
Public Interest Litigation - Property Dispute - The court dismissed the petition, imposed costs on the petitioner, and emphasized the lack of credibility and bonafides of the petitioner in filing the purported Public Interest Litigation.
Fact of the Case:
The petition was initially filed regarding the status and use of a property, which was later converted into a Public Interest Litigation. The petitioner made specific allegations against a builder, but later deleted the builder from the respondents without offering a credible clarification.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's actions raised serious doubts about the credibility and bonafides of the purported Public Interest Litigation. The court noted the petitioner's lack of history in social service or public interest causes, and the failure to provide any credible clarification despite multiple opportunities.
Issues: The main issue was the credibility and bonafides of the petitioner in filing the purported Public Interest Litigation, as well as the abuse of judicial process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a Public Interest Litigation should be based on genuine public interest and supported by credible material. The lack of credibility and bonafides of the petitioner led to the dismissal of the petition and imposition of costs.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs imposed on the petitioner, and the petitioner was directed to pay the costs to the Legal Services Authority within a specified period.
1. Heard Mr. Sushil Shukla, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. P.G. Sawant, learned AGP for Respondent-State.
2. Initially this Petition was filed raising several allegations in respect of the status and the user of the property bearing Survey No.478 Hissa Nos.1 and 2 in the village of Bhayander, District Thane (said property). The main allegations were that the said property was a government property and the Tahsildar, was not taking effective steps to maintain the said property and further, there was danger that the said property is misused by certain private parties.
3. The petition was converted into a Public Interest Litigation thereafter, since, it was represented that the grievance is not against any particular individual but the grievance is of a general nature. It is pertinent to note that the Petitioner then amended the Petition and made specific allegations against RNA Builders, who were impleaded as Respondent No.5 to the Petition.
4. The amendment containing serious allegations against RNA Builders is contained over a rider in the form of para 4(k)(i). After all this and surprisingly, the Petitioner, amended the Petition and deleted RNA Builders from the array of Respondents. However, the allegations against RNA Builders continued to remain a part of the record.
5. On 21 July 2017, since we were surprised at this development, we directed the Petitioner to clarify his position. Our order dated 21 July 2017, reads as follows :-
'11. On going through the contents of the petition, cause title and averments, we notice that respondent no.5 - RNA Developers are deleted from the cause title by way of amending the petition, however, several averments are made against the very RNA builders. We are unable to understand the stand of the petitioner. Petitioner to clarify the same'.
6. From 21 July 2017 onwards till date, although matter came up on several occasions, the Petitioner has not chosen to file any affidavit to clarify his position instead, as noted by us by our order dated 2 November 2017, the Petitioner has applied for adjournment mainly on the ground that his Advocate was not available. We have noted that on several instances in the past, the Petitioner, applies for adjournment on this ground.
7. Today, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, without offering any explanation as to why no affidavit has been filed by the Petitioner since 21 July 2017, seeks to clarify the position by stating that the Petition, as originally filed, was not a Public Interest Litigation. Such clarification, hardly inspires any confidence. In fact, this is not a clarification at all.
8. If, the Respondent No.5 stands deleted from array of parties, the rest of the averments in the Petition are blissfully vague and on the basis of the same, it is not possible to even treat present Petition as any bonafide Public Interest Litigation. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has not applied for any information under Right to Information Act. If indeed there are any apprehensions of misuse of government land, then, the Petitioner is also expected to do his homework and place cogent and proper material on record. The purpose of such Petition cannot be to embark upon some sort of fishing expedition. We are not at all satisfied that this is a bonafide Public Interest Litigation. The Petitioner, has no history of any social service or taking up causes in public interest. The Petitioner himself is a builder, functioning under the name and style of 'Shraddha Developers'. The manner in which, the Petitioner has chosen to delete Respondent No.5 from the array of parties creates a severe dent in the credibility and the credentials of the Petitioner. We do not deem it safe or appropriate to entertain a Public Interest Litigation of this nature and at the behest of such a Petitioner. We note that despite our order dated 21 July 2017, the Petitioner has not offered any clarification, much less, any credible clarification
