Shakil Ahmed Zakaria Shaikh vs State Of Gujarat
2022 Latest Caselaw 7478 Guj

     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

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

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."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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