Non-joinder of necessary parties in a Public Interest Petition, compliance with PIL Rules, and potential oblique motives can lead to the dismissal of the petition.

JUDGMENT :

Arif S. Doctor, J.

1. The captioned Petition is stated to be filed in the Public Interest and seeks the following reliefs, viz.

“a. The Hon’ble Court to direct the Respondents and more particularly Respondent No. 2 to file his affidavit why he didn’t take any actions on the illegal constructions being on the record, notices issued, demolitions ordered and prosecutions warned.

b. To direct the Respondents to demolish the entire Shubham Building, impose heavy penalty for illegal user and launch prosecution against Shubham Building owners Sagar Landmark Pvt. Ltd.

c. To direct the Sudharma Building developer to demolish and properly level the ground, remove the excess height of the compound wall and lower down the round corner wall upto 10 metre length on both the roads upto 2’-6” height with grill on top, remove acrylic roofing on the open spaces and any other illegalities deviating from approved plans.

d. To direct the Respondents to prosecute the Sudharma builder, to impose heavy penalty, cost of demolition and launch prosecution against him.

e. To direct to enquire thoroughly on the illegal approval of Adish building on the Juhu Beach illegally constructed as hotel building for cheating on Respondent No.3, government for getting FSI 2 but actually used as residential building of nine storeys for over 10 years.

f. To impose heavy penalty on the owner/occupier of Adish Building cost of demolition of half of upper storeys and balance to be converted as residential.

g. To direct Respondents to prosecute the current Occupant/Owner for FSI fraud committed on Respondent No.3 government with stringent provisions of the relevant laws.

h. To direct prosecution of Respondent No.2 on his inaction and deriliction of his duty.”

2. At the outset, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of both Respondents, raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the present Petition. They submitted that while the Petitioner had sought reliefs against the owners/developers of the buildings/structures more particularly set out in the Petition, the Petitioner had not impleaded any of the owners/developers as party Respondents to the Petition. They submitted that when this was noticed by the Court on a previous occasion, the Petitioner had infact sought leave of the Court to amend the Petition as recorded in the order dated 20th January 2023. They submitted that despite this, the Petitioner had not impleaded any of the owners/developers as party Respondents to the Petition. It was thus they submitted that the Petition deserved to be dismissed in limine.

3. In light of the above, we put to Mr. Raiyani – Petitioner appearing in person as to how this Petition could be entertained without joining the parties against whom reliefs were sought and/or who would be directly affected if the Court were to infact grant such reliefs. Mr. Raiyani however submitted that he did not need to amend the Petition and was not going to amend the same by adding any of the owners/developers as Party Respondents to the Petition. We then once again put to Mr. Raiyani as to how this Petition could be entertained, absent joinder of parties against whom reliefs were sought and who would be directly affected by the grant of such prayers by this Court. Mr. Raiyani submitted that the joinder of the owners/developers was not necessary as the contents of the Petition itself made out a case for the grant of the reliefs that were prayed for. He thus submitted that it was not necessary for him to amend the Petition. He then stated that he had filed over one hundred public interest petitions and had raised issues of vital public interest. He requested the Court to then permit him to make his submissions after which he stated that he would be filing written submissions.

4. Mr. Raiyani then instead of making submissions proceeded to read out the entire Petition. He read the Petition thread bare and while doing so repeatedly named a prominent political figure who he submitted owned on