C/SCA/15085/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15085 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
===========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to No
see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the No
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law No
as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any
order made thereunder ?
===========================================================
SHAKIL AHMED ZAKARIA SHAIKH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
===========================================================
Appearance:NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. MEET THAKKAR, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR DHAVAL G NANAVATI(2578) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR VICKY B MEHTA(5422) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MR.KISHORE PRAJAPATI(6305) for the Respondent(s) No. 5,6,7,8,9
===========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 30/08/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner Page 1 of 29 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 02 20:54:21 IST 2022 C/SCA/15085/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2022 praying relief, which reads as follows:
"A. Be pleased to admit this petition;
B. Be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or
direction upon the concerned respondent authorities to demolish the illegal construction carried out by the concerned respondent owners and occupiers in Plot No. 141 and 161 of the Aman Part -- 1 Cooperative Society, Survey No. 30 and F.P. No. 166 and in Plot No. 9 and 10 of Satya Sai Cooperative Society, in Anjana T.P. No. 7, Survey No. 37, FP No.171, Plot No.9 and 10, in the interest of justice, C. Be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction upon the concerned respondent authorities restraining the concerned respondent owners and occupiers of Plot No. 141 and 161 of the Aman Part
-- 1 Cooperative Society, Survey No. 30 and F.P. No. 166 and in Plot No.9 and 10 of Satya Sai Cooperative Society from carrying out illegal construction over Plot No.141 and 161 of the Aman Part - 1 Cooperative Society and in Plot No.9 and 10 of Satya Sai Cooperative Society, in Anjana T.P. No.7, Survey No.37, FP No.171 in the interest of justice, D. Pending admission and final disposal of this Page 2 of 29 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 02 20:54:21 IST 2022 C/SCA/15085/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2022 petition, be pleased to by way of interim order be pleased to grant stay of further construction over Plot No.141 and 161 of the Aman Part -- 1 Cooperative Society, Survey No. 30 and F.P. No. 166 and in Plot No. 9 and 10 of Satya Sai Cooperative Society, in Anjana T.P. No. 7, Survey No. 37, FP No. 171 in the interest of justice, and be pleased to pass an order restraining the concerned respondent owners and occupiers of Plot No.141 and 161 of the Aman Part - 1 Cooperative Society and in Plot No. 9 and 10 of Satya Sai Cooperative Society from carrying out any further construction over Plot No. 141 and 161 of the Aman Part -- 1 Cooperative Society and in Plot No. 9 and 10 of Satya Sai Cooperative Society, in the interest of justice, E. Be pleased to pass an order directing the concerned respondent authorities to decide/consider the various representations preferred by the petitioner in connection with illegal construction carried out by concerned respondent owners/occupiers, as expeditiously as possible, in the interest of justice, F. Pass such orders as thought fit in the interest of justice."
Page 3 of 29 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 02 20:54:21 IST 2022 C/SCA/15085/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2022 2.1 The contention in the present petition mainly pertains to alleged grievance for not taking action by the respondent - authorities in demolishing the so- called illegal construction carried out by the concerned respondent owners in Anjana T.P. No.7, Survey No.30, FP No.166, Plot No.141 and 161 of the Aman Part-1 Cooperative Society and in Anjana T.P. No.7, Survey No.37, FP No.171, Plot No.9 and 10 of Satya Sai Cooperative Society. Further, his prayer about prohibiting the said societies from putting up further construction on the said land. 2.2 Learned ASG Mr. Meet Thakkar has appeared for respondent No.1 - State, learned advocate Mr. Amit V. Thakkar with learned advocate Mr. Vicky B. Mehta has appeared for respondent No.4 - Society and learned advocate Mr. Kishor Prajapati has appeared for respondent Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 as well as learned advocate Mr. Dhaval G. Nanavati has appeared for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2.3 Although, formal notice is not issued by this Page 4 of 29 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 02 20:54:21 IST 2022 C/SCA/15085/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2022 Court but the respective respondents have also filed their affidavit in reply in the present petition. 2.4 Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.
2.5 If we consider the tenor of the present petition, the present petitioner has projected himself as a professional legal adviser in the city of Surat. He has further contended that though he has made several representations before the concerned authorities, the illegal construction, which is put up by the societies namely Aman Cooperative Society and Satya Sai Cooperative Society are not demolished by Municipal Corporation. It is averred in the present petition that Satya Sai Cooperative Society is situated at Survey No.37, FP No.171 and there is another society named Aman Cooperative Society situated at Survey No.30, FP No.166, and both these societies are situated exactly adjacent to each other. Therefore, he has submitted that the present petitioner has mentioned his address in the present Page 5 of 29 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 02 20:54:21 IST 2022 C/SCA/15085/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2022 petition as he is residing in the Aman Cooperative Society, Bhatena, Udhna, Surat and considering this averment in the present petition, this Court found prima facie that the present petitioner has no direct interest or right to file such petition against the said society by alleging some irregularity or illegality committed by the society by putting up illegal construction. For that, considering the reply which is filed by the respondent No.4 - Malik Mohammad Bilal in the present petition is affirmed on 31.03.2022 and while going through the reply it is found that the present petitioner is alleged to be a busy body by the respondent No.4 and it is also alleged in the reply that the petitioner uses litigation and court machinery as a tool and for his malafide intention to extort money by browbeating citizens such as the respondent. It is also contended that the petitioner has no locus standi to approach this Court for the prayer prayed by the petitioner. 2.6 It is further reflected from the affidavit filed by respondent No.4 that one Nausir Adeshar Bhatena Page 6 of 29 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 02 20:54:21 IST 2022 C/SCA/15085/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2022 has registered a complaint on 22.04.2015 against the present petitioner and others for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 385, 388, 504, 506(2) and 144 of the I.P.C. wherein allegations are with regard to extortion of money and the said complaint is also produced on record by the respondent No.4 along with affidavit. Further, the respondent No.4 has averred in reply that another F.I.R. was register at Dindoli Police Station on 12.12.2018 against the present petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 143, 147, 149, 504 and 114 of I.P.C. being C.R. No.I- 237 of 2018 and the copy of the said F.I.R. is annexed with the affidavit in reply. It further reveals from the affidavit filed by the respondent No.4 that one Shamimbanu wife of Aminsaheb Saiyad had also registered a complaint against the petitioner and others before Police Commissioner, Surat on 26.03.2015 wherein, the allegations are made that the present petitioner along with others browbeating to register false complaint against the person, who has filed that complaint before the Police Commissioner and copy of that Page 7 of 29 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 02 20:54:21 IST 2022 C/SCA/15085/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2022 complaint dated 23.06.2015 is annexed with the reply. It is also revealed from the affidavit in reply filed respondent No.4 that Smt. Kurshid Abdul Kadir Ansari has also registered a complaint on 09.11.2020 against the petitioner before the Police Commissioner, Surat and in the said complaint, it has been stated that the petitioner is trying to harass the residents by lodging false applications under RTI Act and by harassing the residents that he shall see to it that the construction is demolished and thus, the petitioner is extorting the money by illegal means. The said complaint is filed by the said lady whose husband has also tried to commit suicide on 07.11.2020 and copy of that complaint dated 09.11.2020 is annexed with the affidavit in reply filed by the respondent No.4. It is also averred in affidavit in reply that on Junaid Ahmed Juber Ahmed Shaikh has also lodged a complaint on 06.11.2020 against the present petitioner and others for extortion of money. The petitioner had demanded money of Rs.30 lakhs from the said complainant - Junaid Ahmed by threatening that his flats would be Page 8 of 29 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 02 20:54:21 IST 2022 C/SCA/15085/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2022 demolished.
2.7 The respondent No.4 has also contended in affidavit in reply that though the petitioner is not an advocate by profession, the petitioner is wrongly projecting himself as an advocate and is trying to create an atmosphere of fear in the mind of the other persons. It is also revealed from the affidavit filed by the respondent No.4 that recently also, an F.I.R. is registered against the present petitioner before DCB Police Station, Surat City for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 385, 387 and 506(2) of IPC on 23.12.2021. It is also revealed from the affidavit of the respondent No.4 that the residents of Satya Sai Cooperative Society and other local residents have also objected the bail application filed pursuant to the abovementioned F.I.R.. It is also revealed from the record that the present petitioner is time and again approached the concerned authorities by making false and frivolous representation against construction put up by various societies including Aman Cooperative Society and Page 9 of 29 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 02 20:54:21 IST 2022 C/SCA/15085/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2022 Satya Sai Cooperative Society and tried to browbeat the local residents. It is contended in the affidavit that "the petitioner is not aggrieved person" and therefore, he has no locus standi to seek any relief by way of the present petition and the petitioner is not admittedly residing in the Aman Cooperative Society and therefore, respondent No.4 has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Asaraf Abubakkar Ansari Vs. Commissioner & Ors. reported in 2012 (5) GLR 3769.
2.8 It is further submitted that even photographs, which is annexed with the petition do not pertains to Aman Cooperative Society and photographs which are produced at page 25, 27 and 28 in the petition are of the Pushpanagar Society and therefore, the petitioner has tried to misguide this Court by producing such documents with a view to get favourable relief and therefore, it is prayed that the petition deserves to be dismissed.
2.9 It is also revealed from the affidavit filed by Page 10 of 29 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 02 20:54:21 IST 2022 C/SCA/15085/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2022 Surat Municipal Corporation which is affirmed on 01.04.2022 by one Executive Engineer (South East Zone), Municipal Corporation wherein substance, it is submitted by the corporation that the writ petitioner
- Sakil Ahmed Zakaria Shaikh has approached this Court with not only an uncleaned but has hide the vital information which may go to the root of the subject matter and also several criminal cases was filed against the present petitioner for extortion. It is also averred in the affidavit filed by the Municipal Corporation that the address mentioned in memo of parties - cause title i.e. Plot No.5 and Plot No.6 Satya Sai Cooperative Society itself is an illegal structure and do not possess any permission which are required and needed under the provisions of Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. It is further contended that the present petitioner does not possess any law degree of the Sanad issued by Bar Council of Gujarat and looking to the conduct of the present petitioner, who is also having criminal background and number of criminal complaints were registered against the present petitioner, this aspect Page 11 of 29 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 02 20:54:21 IST 2022 C/SCA/15085/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2022 may be taken into consideration. It is also averred in the affidavit in reply filed by Surat Municipal Corporation about issue of legal of construction which is mentioned in the writ petition. The Municipal Corporation has not found from the record any such development permission on building use permission for subject matter of the petition. However, it is noted that till this day, no such document is produced by any of contesting respondents. Therefore, the Municipal Corporation has submitted that the respective respondents were put up to strict terms to produce the permission on record of this proceeding and therefore, the Municipal Corporation has though objected the locus standi of the present petition that whatever the order passed by this Court, the Municipal Corporation will comply with such directions.
3.1 I have heard all the advocates for the parties including learned advocate Mr. Mazmudar for the petitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner has filed the present petition and thereafter, the Page 12 of 29 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 02 20:54:21 IST 2022 C/SCA/15085/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2022 petitioner has filed rejoiner to various replies filed by the respective respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 and he has submitted that since it is not in dispute that the respondents Aman Part-I Cooperative Society and Satya Sai Cooperative Society in Anjana have not obtained any required permission before putting up the construction and therefore, the present petitioner is justifying in bringing to the notice of the authority about the illegal construction and it is duty of the municipal corporation to take appropriate action in the matter but somehow the Municipal Corporation has not taken any action and therefore, the present petitioner has filed the petition as the petitioner is working as a professional legal advisor and therefore, he prays to allow the present petition by considering various averments made in the present petition and by considering the provisions of Bombay Municipal Corporation Act and also the judgment of this Court in the case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Versus Vijay Owners' Association reported in 2000 (3) GLH 510 as well as by directing respondent corporation to demolish such illegal construction but Page 13 of 29 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 02 20:54:21 IST 2022 C/SCA/15085/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2022 when this Court after referring affidavit in reply of respondent Nos.3 and 4, has inquired that how the petitioner is party affected for the reliefs prayed in the petition, the present petitioner is not able to give answer in satisfactory manner.
3.2 Learned advocate Mr. Amit Thakkar appearing for respondent No.4 has submitted that even considering part plan which is produced by the petitioner at Annexure-A where the Satya Sai Cooperative Society is shown in FP No.171 and Aman Cooperative Society is shown in FP No.166, there is in between TP road of 40 fit is provided and is actually existing and therefore, the averments made by the petitioner in the petition projecting himself residents of Aman Cooperative Society is also found incorrect. Furthermore, he has submitted that the petitioner has no locus as the petitioner cannot be considered as aggrieved party and he has relied on the judgment of this Court in the of Asaraf Abubakkar Ansari (supra) and has submitted that the present petitioner cannot be considered an Page 14 of 29 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 02 20:54:21 IST 2022 C/SCA/15085/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2022 aggrieved person and therefore, he has submitted that a person aggrieved must have suffered legal wrong or injury by some act of omission or commission of an authority which is prejudicial to him in the present case, admitted the petitioner is not residing in the Aman Cooperative Society and on the ground of locus standi, the present petition is required to be dismissed in view of the abovementioned judgment.
3.3 Learned advocate Mr. Dhaval G. Nanavati for respondent Nos.2 and 3 has also supported the submissions made by the respondent No.4, which pertains to locus standi of the petitioner and more particularly, the petitioner is having criminal background and the petitioner has suppressed material facts from this Court about his criminal history and also tried to misguide the Court by projecting himself as law professional and therefore, Learned advocate Mr. Amit Thakkar and learned advocate Mr. Nanavati pray to dismiss the present petition on the ground that the present petition has Page 15 of 29 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 02 20:54:21 IST 2022 C/SCA/15085/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2022 no locus standi as well as petitioner has suppressed material fact from this Court and also there is disputed question of fact involves in the present petition. He has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Versus State of Maharashtra reported 2013 (4) SCC 465.
3.4 Learned advocate Mr. Kishore Prajapati has adopted the arguments of learned advocate Mr. Amit Thakkar as well as Mr. Nanavati to the extent about the locus standi and prays to dismiss the present petition as the present petitioner is a busy body and he has no locus to file the present petition. 4.1 I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. I have also perused the record and proceedings. I have perused the memo of petition as well as the affidavits filed by respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4.
4.2 It clearly transpires from the perusal of memo Page 16 of 29 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 02 20:54:21 IST 2022 C/SCA/15085/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2022 of the petition that the present petitioner has projected himself in para 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3, which is as under:
"3.1. The petitioner is residing at the address above mentioned in the cause title and is working as a professional Legal Advisor in the city of Surat.
3.2. The petitioner states that the petitioner resides at Plot No. 5 and 6 Satya Sai Cooperative Society, Flat No. 100, Rozaan Park, B/h Tabrez Apartments, Aman Society, Bhatena, Udhna, Surat and is residing at the said address for more than 20 years now.
3.3. The petitioner states that the said Satya Sai Cooperative Society is situated in Survey No. 37 and F.P. No. 171 and adjacent to the said Satya Sai Society there is one another society called as Aman Society situated at Survey No. 30 and F.P. No. 166 and both of these 2 societies are situated exactly adjacent to each other. Annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE-A is the copy of Map."
It is also falsely averred by the petitioner in para 3.3 that Satya Sai Cooperative Society is adjacent to Aman Cooperative Society in fact there is Page 17 of 29 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 02 20:54:21 IST 2022 C/SCA/15085/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2022 a 40 fit town planning road, which is existing between FP No.171 and FP No.166 and therefore, such averments is found incorrect, which is presented with a view to mislead this Court.
4.3 It is further found that the petitioner has mentioned his address as Tabrez Apartments, Aman Society, Bhatena, Udhana as if he is residing in Aman Cooperative Society but the petitioner is not residing at the said address and just with a view to mention that Aman Society that he is a resident of Aman Society he has mentioned the name of society in the cause title to mislead the Court for the purpose that he can be considered as affected party. 4.4 It is also found from the record that there are several criminal complaints by several other persons are filed against the present petitioner for extorting the money or for browbeating the residents of various societies by giving threats about demolition of their premises. Considering this aspect, the Court has put pertinent query to the learned advocate Mr. Page 18 of 29 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 02 20:54:21 IST 2022 C/SCA/15085/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2022 Mazmudar that whether the petitioner is having any law degree or is having sanad issued by Bar Council of Gujarat. Learned advocate Mr. Mazmudar after verifying this aspect from his client has submitted that the petitioner is neither having any law degree nor practicing advocate and therefore, the present petition is filed with some ulterior motive and it establishes that the petitioner is trying to pressurize the private respondents by which the petitioner can extort money. It is further found after perusing materials available on record that the petitioner has no locus standi as per the decision of this Court in the case of Asaraf Abubakkar Ansari (supra) and para 19 to 22 are relevant, which reads as follows:
" 19. The principal question which falls for determination by this Court is, who can said to be a 'person aggrieved'?
20. A Division Bench of this Court in Lalbhai Trading Company v.Union of India, reported in 2006(1) GLR 497 has examined several judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court, including Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar (Supra); and certain English decisions, at length. After Page 19 of 29 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 02 20:54:21 IST 2022 C/SCA/15085/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2022 having done so, it has been held as below:
"14 On a conspectus of the aforesaid case-law, it becomes clear that the words 'person aggrieved' are required to be ascertained with reference to the purpose of the provisions of the statute in which they occur. The meaning may vary according to the context of the statute. However, one thing is certain, a person can be said to be aggrieved if a legal burden is imposed on him which may be in the form of being denied or deprived of something to which such person is legally entitled.
[a] The meaning of the words 'aggrieved person' cannot be read as an expression which is rigid, exact and comprehensive. Apart from the content and intent of the statute, the specific circumstances of the case, the nature and extent of the person's interest, and the nature and extent of the prejudice or injury suffered by the person are relevant factors.
[b] The duty of the Court is to read into the statute, a duty to act fairly in accordance with the principles of natural justice. If a person suffers a wrong as a result of unfair treatment on the part of the authority, he is a person who has suffered a legal grievance, against whom a decision has been pronounced which Page 20 of 29 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 02 20:54:21 IST 2022 C/SCA/15085/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2022 decision has either wrongfully deprived him or wrongfully refused him something or wrongfully affected his title to something. In other words, the person must have suffered a legal wrong or injury, in the sense, that his interest is prejudicially and directly affected by the act or omission of the authority. [c] The grievance has to be his own beyond some grievance or inconvenience suffered by him in common with the rest of the public. The test is: can the person be said to be entitled to object and be heard by the authority before the authority takes the impugned action.
[d] The person has to be directly and immediately affected. An aggrieved party is one whose personal, pecuniary or property rights are adversely affected by another person's action or by a decree or judgment by a Court.
[e] An appeal can be preferred from every original decree or from every decree passed in appeal. The appellant must be a person aggrieved by a decree not merely by a finding. The person must be prejudicially or adversely affected by the decree. In other words, when a person is fastened with liability whereunder his property, of every type, is directly affected. To put Page 21 of 29 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 02 20:54:21 IST 2022 C/SCA/15085/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2022 it differently,is the person, by virtue of the decree, called upon to discharge a pecuniary liability so as to deprive him of his property. If the answer is yes, he is an 'aggrieved person'."
21. The principles of law enunciated by the Division Bench have been relied upon by this Court in Ganpat Mohanbhai Vasava v. Addl. Development Commissioner, AIR 2008 Gujarat 88.
22. Examining the case of the petitioner in light of the principles of law culled out by the Division Bench, and even if the words "person aggrieved" are not read in a narrow or rigid manner, then also, there should be some prejudice or injury or wrong suffered by a person. 'A person aggrieved' must have suffered a legal wrong or injury by some act of omission or commission of an authority, which is prejudicial to him. The petitioner has no personal interest in the alleged illegal construction being put up by respondents Nos.3 and 4. No pecuniary or property right of his is stated to be adversely affected. It is not the case of the petitioner that the alleged illegal constructions are causing him hindrance, hardship or inconvenience in any manner. It should be noted that the petition has not been filed in the public interest. The petitioner has already apprised the concerned authorities regarding the alleged illegal construction being carried on by respondents Nos.3 and 4 Page 22 of 29 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 02 20:54:21 IST 2022 C/SCA/15085/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2022 and has specifically prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order, directing the respondents authorities to take legal action/step against the alleged illegal construction "as per the representations made by the petitioner". In short, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus,directing the respondents to act as per the representations made by him."
4.5 It clearly transpires that as discussed earlier, in the facts of the present case, when no prejudice, injury or wrong is suffered by the present petitioner, the present petitioner cannot be considered as "aggrieved person" and for being aggrieved person, the person aggrieved must have suffered legal wrong or injury by some act of omission or commission of an authority which is prejudicial to him. The petitioner has no direct interest or title in the alleged illegal construction being put up by private respondent No.4 and others and therefore, considering this judgment as well as the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court cited at bar by learned advocate Mr. Dhaval G. Nanavati in the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan (supra) where para 8, 9, 10 and 15 Page 23 of 29 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 02 20:54:21 IST 2022 C/SCA/15085/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2022 are relevant, which is as under:
8. A "legal right", means an entitlement arising out of legal rules. Thus, it may be defined as an advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. The expression, "person aggrieved" does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must therefore, necessarily be one, whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardised.
(Vide: Shanti Kumar R. Chanji v. Home Insurance Co. of New York, AIR 1974 SC 1719; and State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1977 SC 1361).
9. In Anand Sharadchandra Oka v. University of Mumbai, AIR 2008 SC 1289, a similar view was taken by this Court, observing that, if a person claiming relief is not eligible as per requirement, then he cannot be said to be a person aggrieved regarding the election or the selection of other persons.
10. In A. Subhash Babu v. State of A. P. , AIR 2011 SC 3031, this Court held:
"The expression 'aggrieved person' denotes an elastic and an elusive concept. It cannot be confined within the bounds of Page 24 of 29 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 02 20:54:21 IST 2022 C/SCA/15085/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2022 a rigid, exact and comprehensive definition. Its scope and meaning depends on diverse, variable factors such as the content and intent of the statute of which contravention is alleged, the specific circumstances of the case, the nature and extent of complainant's interest and the nature and the extent of the prejudice or injury suffered by the complainant."
15. In view of the above, the law on the said point can be summarised to the effect that a person who raises a grievance, must show how he has suffered legal injury. Generally, a stranger having no right whatsoever to any post or property, cannot be permitted to intervene in the affairs of others.
Locus standi of respondent no.5 :"
4.6 Considering the above position of law and more particularly the conduct of the present petitioner, who has tried to mislead the Court by making incorrect averments in the petition by projecting himself as legal practitioner and by projecting himself as a resident of Aman Cooperative Society and when the petitioner cannot be considered as an aggrieved person to seek such prayers in the present petition, I Page 25 of 29 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 02 20:54:21 IST 2022 C/SCA/15085/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2022 found that on the ground of locus standi and well as suppression of material facts, the present petition deserves to be dismissed and no valid ground is made out by the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain the present petition, which is filed with some ulterior motive by the present petitioner as it is found above that the present petitioner has no locus standi and has suppressed material facts. 4.7 It is also noteworthy to mention that since the present petitioner has averred something which is contrary to the reply given by the respondent on the factual aspect and therefore, also considering the disputed questions of fact involved in the present petition, I am not inclined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the present petition is required to be dismissed with costs as the present petitioner has tried to abuse the process of law though he is not having any locus standi to file such petition and therefore, the cost is Page 26 of 29 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 02 20:54:21 IST 2022 C/SCA/15085/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2022 to the extent of Rs.25,000/-.
4.8 However, it is necessary to say that after independently verifying the records, if the authority finds any irregularity or illegality committed by any party pertains to the alleged construction, it is open for the concerned authority to take appropriate steps, after following due procedure, in accordance with law. Only because of present petitioner has not established his locus standi and has also tried to suppress material facts, this Court is of the opinion that such busy body should be discouraged and therefore in that view, the present petition is dismissed.
4.9 It is also relevant to note that the conduct of the present petitioner is required to be deprecated as the present petitioner has tried to hide his criminal history as many complaints are filed against him by various other persons in Surat for extorting money or by other reasons and this aspect is not disclosed by the petitioner. Moreover, the present petitioner is Page 27 of 29 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 02 20:54:21 IST 2022 C/SCA/15085/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2022 neither a resident of Aman Society nor an aggrieved person and therefore, the present petitioner seems to be a busy body in activities to extort the money from the person nearby vicinity under one pretext or other. Considering such conduct, the present petition is nothing but an attempt to misuse the process of law with a view to ill-intention of extorting the money from the present respondents, who are residents of Aman Society as well as Satya Sai Cooperative Society and therefore, it is required to be noted that the present petitioner has filed present petition without any authority being aggrieved party for any action which affects or prejudices his right and therefore, serious note of conduct of the present petitioner is recorded as the present petitioner is found a busy body and such litigants should be discouraged by the Courts of law.
5. For the reason stated above, the following order is passed.
5.1 The present petition is dismissed on the ground Page 28 of 29 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 02 20:54:21 IST 2022 C/SCA/15085/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2022 of conduct of the petitioner and on the ground of no locus standi.
5.2 The present petitioner is directed to deposit costs of Rs.25,000/- within a period of one week before the Gujarat State Legal Service Authority and produce such receipt before the Registry of this Court.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) DIWAKAR SHUKLA Page 29 of 29 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 02 20:54:21 IST 2022