Bombay High Court
Bhagvanji Raiyani vs The Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 15 January, 2024
Digitally signed
by LAXMIKANT
LAXMIKANT
2024:BHC-OS:729-DB
GOPAL
GOPAL CHANDAN
CHANDAN Date:
2024.01.15
18:26:42 +0530 1 PIL(L)-2557.21 (4).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (L) NO.2557 OF 2021
Mr. Bhagvanji Raiyani ]
Aged 82 years, Occu : Ritered ]
th
Busnesmen, residing at 5 Floor, ]
Deepak Villa, 15, Vallabh Nagar CHS ]
Ltd. N. S. Road No.4, J.V.P.D. Scheme]
Vile Parle (West), Mumbai - 400 056 ]..... Petitioner.
Vs.
1] The Municipal Corporation of ]
Greater Mumbai, a Body ]
Corporate constituted under the ]
Mumbai Municipal Corporation ]
Act, 1888 having its office at ]
Mahapalika Bhavan, Mahapalika ]
Marg, Opp. C.S.T. Fort, ]
Mumbai - 400 001 ]
]
2] Shri Vishvas Mote ]
Assistant Municipal ]
Commissioner, K-West Ward, ]
Paliram Path, Near S. V. Road, ]
Opp. Andheri Railway Station, ]
Andheri (West), ]
Mumbai - 400 058 ]
]
3] State of Maharashtra ]
through the Principal Secretary ]
Dept. of Urban Development, ]
Govt. of Maharashtra, ]
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. ]..... Respondents.
LGC 1 of 15
::: Uploaded on - 15/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2024 06:08:20 :::
2 PIL(L)-2557.21 (4).doc
-----
Mr. Bhagvanji Raiyani in person.
Ms. Oorja Dhond i/by S. K. Sonawane for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Mr. Abhay Patki, AGP, for Respondent No.3 - State.
-----
CORAM : DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. &
ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.
Reserved on : 3rd JANUARY 2024
Pronounced on : 15th JANUARY 2024.
JUDGMENT (Per 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
LGC 2 of 15
3 PIL(L)-2557.21 (4).doc
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
LGC 3 of 15
4 PIL(L)-2557.21 (4).doc
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 20 th 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
LGC 4 of 15
5 PIL(L)-2557.21 (4).doc
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 affectedby 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 one of the
buildings/structures mentioned in the Petition and in respect of
LGC 5 of 15
6 PIL(L)-2557.21 (4).doc
which orders, including of demolition, were sought. He
submitted that it was because the said building/structure was
owned by the said political figure the Respondents were turning
a blind eye, to what he submitted, were various illegalities and
contravention of permissions granted. When we asked Mr.
Raiyani to point where in the Petition this was stated, he was
unable to do so but reiterated that action was required to be
taken against all the said buildings/structures and their
respective owners/developers as prayed for.
5 Mr. Raiyani, after reading the entire Petition, then
tendered written submissions which he also read out. It is crucial
to note that while the Petition alleged illegalities qua three
buildings/structures, the entire thrust of the written submissions
was only qua the building/structure stated to be owned by the
prominent political figure. In the written submissions the
Petitioner has infact specifically stated that he has targeted four
buildings for alleged illegal constructions though he prayed for
prosecution of only the prominent political figure.
LGC 6 of 15
7 PIL(L)-2557.21 (4).doc
6 After having heard Mr. Raiyani at considerable length
as also independently going through the contents of the Petition
and written submissions, we find that the present Petition
deserves to be dismissed in limine for the following reasons, viz.
A. First, the Petitioner has despite seeking reliefs
(including of prosecution) against the owners/builders
of buildings/structures mentioned in the Petition, has
chosen not to join the said owners/developers as
party Respondents to the present Petition. We must
note that this was despite the fact that the Petitioner
had sought leave to amend the Petition by adding
parties, but infact did not. There can be no manner of
doubt that the owners/developers of the said
buildings/structures would be necessary parties to the
Petition and who would be vitally aggrieved by any
order passed, despite which they have not been
impleaded as party Respondents. Thus, the non-
joinder of necessary parties would itself, in our view,
LGC 7 of 15
8 PIL(L)-2557.21 (4).doc
render the Petition liable to be dismissed. It is useful
in this regard to place reliance upon a judgement of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabhodh
Verma and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Others1 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as
follows, viz.
"28. The real question before us,
therefore, is the correctness of the decision of
the High Court in the Sangh's case. Before we
address ourselves to this question, we would like
to point out that the writ petition filed by the
Sangh suffered from two serious, though not
incurable, defects. The first defect was that of
non-joinder of necessary parties. The only
respondents to the Sangh's petition were the
State of Uttar Pradesh and its concerned
officers. Those who were vitally concerned,
namely, the reserve pool teachers, were not
made parties-not even by joining some of them
in a representative capacity, considering that
their number was too large for all of them to be
joined individually as respondents. The matter,
therefore, came to be decided in their absence.
1 (1984) 4 SCC 251
LGC 8 of 15
9 PIL(L)-2557.21 (4).doc
A High Court ought not to decide a writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution without the
persons who would be vitally affected by its
judgment being before it as respondents or at
least by some of them being before it as
respondents in a representative capacity if their
number is too large, and, therefore, the
Allahabad High Court ought not to have
proceeded to hear and dispose of the Sangh's
writ petition without insisting upon the reserve
pool teachers being made respondents to that
writ petition, or at least some of them being
made respondents in a representative capacity,
and had the petitioners refused to do so, ought
to have dismissed that petition for non-joinder of
necessary parties."
(emphasis supplied)
Thus, we find that the Petitioner though aware of the
identity of the individuals/entities against whom
reliefs have been prayed for and who would be vitally
aggrieved by any such orders and yet refusing to join
them as Parties to the present Petition, the Petition
deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.
LGC 9 of 15
10 PIL(L)-2557.21 (4).doc
B. Second, though the Petition is filed as a Public
Interest Petition a perusal of the same infact shows
that the same is not in the format prescribed under
the Bombay High Court Public Interest Litigation
Rules, 2010 (PIL Rules). Rule 7 (e) of The PIL Rules
requires the Petitioner to file an undertaking to
disclose the source of the Petitioners knowledge
leading to the filing of the Public Interest Litigation. In
the present case not only has the Petitioner not given
any undertaking, the Petition itself is bereft of any
details of the Petitioner's knowledge and/or how the
Petitioner came into possession of the material which
is annexed to the Petition. While the Petition makes a
reference to an application filed under the provisions
of the Right To Information Act, 2005 ("RTI Act"),
neither a copy of the said Application has been
annexed to the Petition nor have any details in
respect of what information was sought for by the
said Application been stated in the Petition.
LGC 10 of 15
11 PIL(L)-2557.21 (4).doc
C. Third, a perusal of the Petition shows that the
Petitioner had as far back as on 6th March 2007
addressed a letter to the Assistant Municipal
Commissioner K/W ward which appears to be in
respect of one of the buildings/structures mentioned
in the Petition. The Petition is filed in the year 2021
which is about 14 years after the said letter was
addressed and the Petition is entirely silent as to why
the Petitioner had waited so long to file the present
Petition. Additionally, and to our minds crucially, the
Petitioner has in the written submissions focused
almost entirely on the building/structure which is
stated to be owned by the prominent political figure.
The Petitioner has also named the prominent political
figure in the written submissions, (though the Petition
does not do so) and has also made a mention of a
Writ Petition, in which it is submitted that orders inter
alia for demolition and levy of penalty and/or fine qua
LGC 11 of 15
12 PIL(L)-2557.21 (4).doc
the building/structure which is stated to be owned by
such prominent political figure have been passed.
Thus, the focus in the written submissions has shifted
to only the political figure against whom prosecution
is sought and yet refusing to join him as a party
Respondent. This conduct to our mind raises grave
doubts as to the real object/purpose for which the
present Petition has been filed.
D. Fourth, it is crucial for us to bear in mind the
observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of in case of State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant
Singh Chaufal2 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court
issued various directions to preserve the purity and
sanctity of PIL's, inter alia including (i) for High
Courts to frame rules for encouraging genuine PIL's
and discouraging PIL's filed with oblique motives, (ii)
that Courts should prima facie be satisfied regarding
the correctness of the contents of the PIL before
2 2010 SCC OnLine SC 196
LGC 12 of 15
13 PIL(L)-2557.21 (4).doc
entertaining it (iii) that a substantial public interest is
involved in the PIL and (iv) that there is no personal
gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing
the PIL. Given the fact that Petitioner has through his
arguments and then pointedly in the written
submissions effectively targeted only one individual
without joining that individual as a Party Respondent
makes us believe that the Petition has been filed for
oblique purposes.
E. Lastly, we must note the judgment of this Court
passed in another PIL3 filed by the same Petitioner
which was also both pleaded and presented in very
much the same manner as the present Petition has
been, wherein this Court had dismissed the said PIL
by inter alia holding as follows, viz.
".... This is yet another vague and
generalized Public Interest Petition filed by
this Petitioner. Filing such Petitions has
become a regular occurrence, with the
Petitioner presenting one or two such
3 Bhagvanji Raiyani vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr. PIL (L) No. 41119 of 2022
LGC 13 of 15
14 PIL(L)-2557.21 (4).doc
Petitions nearly every weeks.
12. We place on record our
disapproval of the numerous poorly drafted
and haphazardly presented petitions
persistently filed by this Petitioner,
subjecting the Court to a monologue,
thereby consuming valuable judicial time
and resources. It is essential to exercise
prudence and diligence in preparing and
presenting petitions before the Court,
ensuring that they are well-founded and
supported by adequate research and
compelling arguments, avoiding using
intemperate language. It is crucial to
maintain respect and professionalism in all
legal pleadings, regardless of the nature of
the case or the parties involved. The PIL
Petitioner must try to understand the
relevant legal principles, administrative and
constitutional law, and the scope of writ
jurisdiction, and if they cannot do so, seek
legal assistance. That is so because the
judicial system operates with limited time
and resources, and frivolous or poorly
presented PILs burden the Court and
hinder the resolution of other genuine and
urgent cases."
7 Thus, for the aforesaid reasons, we find that the
present Petition is one which in entirely devoid of substance and
merit and fails to satisfy the test laid down by the Hon'ble
LGC 14 of 15
15 PIL(L)-2557.21 (4).doc
Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra).
We must note that a Petition like the present one, which is both
loosely drafted and presented infact militates against the public
interest.
8 Hence, for all of the aforesaid reasons, we find that
the Petition is entirely devoid of merit. We make it clear that we
have not expressed any view on the legality or otherwise of any
of the impugned buildings/structures mentioned in the Petition,
nor have we foreclosed any valid and bona fide challenge to the
same. The Petition is accordingly dismissed.
(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
LGC 15 of 15
