Gujarat HC imposes ₹1.4 cr cost on 7 unscrupulous petitioners over PIL

The amount will go to the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority, which shall be used for the benefit of orphan children

The Gujarat High Court has imposed a collective cost of ₹1.4 crore on a group of seven unscrupulous litigants for filing a PIL seeking to cancel the development permission granted to a builder out of personal vendetta without disclosing their credentials.

The division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D N Ray dismissed the writ petition with exemplary cost of ₹20,00,000, which is to be paid by each of the (seven) petitioners. The amount will go to the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority, which shall be utilised for the benefit of orphan children, it said in its order uploaded on its website on Monday.

 

During the hearing of the matter last Friday, the court orally observed that there is no place for such unscrupulous litigants who have not disclosed their credentials in the writ petition.

Who are these people, nobody knows. What business they are doing, what their occupation is, nothing. They are all independent persons, so (a cost of) ₹20 lakh each, the court said.

It expressly said that the question of entertaining the grievance would arise only when they disclose their credentials.

The only description in the array of parties in a PIL is not sufficient to maintain it, it said.

Our rules say and the law of PIL also says that whosoever is coming to the court as a public interest litigant, the responsibility is on that person to show that he is a public spirited person, it added.

The lawyer for the respondent said the petitioners are chargesheeted for extortion related to the same property against the respondent, and they are "business transaction" rivals trying to highlight irregularities in the construction of a residential-commercial complex constructed on a piece of private land.

The fact that the prayer is made to cancel the development permission and then take action in a public interest litigation (PIL) itself shows that it is not a PIL, the court said.

The development permission is granted under the rules and whatever appropriate provision. The petitioner can be termed as a complainant. He was free to file a writ petition seeking a direction to look into his complaint, it said.

You are seeking a relief in the nature of PIL to ventilate your personal grievances, your grudge...You cannot get away by saying that I am seeking relief for inaction of the authority, the bench said.