Gujarat High Court
Jadeja Dharmendrasinh Ranjitsinh vs State Of Gujarat on 30 January, 2024
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/178/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 178 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR JOINING PARTY) NO. 1 of 2017
In R/WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 178 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed Yes
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy No
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question No
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
JADEJA DHARMENDRASINH RANJITSINH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 6 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SATYAM Y CHHAYA(3242) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR KRUTIK PARIKH ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Opponent(s)
No. 1,2,3,4,7
MR MIHIR JOSHI, SR.ADV. for MR ABHISHEK M MEHTA(3469) for the
Opponent(s) No. 6
MR HARSHEEL D SHUKLA(6158) for the Opponent(s) No. 5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 30/01/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
AGARWAL)
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/178/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
1. The instant petition in the nature of public interest litigation
was presented on 21.08.2017 with the reliefs as under: -
"A. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit and
allow this petition;
B. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue an
appropriate writ, order or direction and thereby quash
and set-aside impugned order dated 30.12.2015 passed
in favour of respondent no.6 of allotment of lands
having valuable rich mineral under it.
C. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue an
appropriate writ, order or direction and thereby direct
the Respondent No.7 authority to initiate the
independent inquiry about the illegality committed by
the concerned authorities while passing the impugned
order dated 30.12.2015 and to inquire as to how the
mandatory provisions of law and prevailing policy of
the State Government were bypassed, as to how land
which was subject matter of research and exploration
and/or which was having mineral potential and having
huge quantity of minerals are subject matter of grant
order dated 30.12.2015 passed in favour of Respondent
No.6 that too without obtaining any 'No Objection
Certificate' from the office of the Commissioner,
Geologist and Mines Department and suitably punish
the erring officers and/or authorities and further direct
the respondent No.7 to place a report of the inquiry on
record of this Hon'ble Court so that further direction
may be issued by this Hon'ble Court.
D. Pending admission and final disposal of this
petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay
execution, operation and implementation of the order
dated 30.12.2015 passed by the District Collector,
District: Devbhumi Dwarka in favour of respondent
No.6 company and further direct the respondent No.6
company not to further undertake any construction qua
the land which was subject matter of exploration and
research and the portion of the land under which
valuable minerals such as limestone and marl were
found;
E. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue
appropriate writ, order or direction and thereby direct
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/178/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
the respondents Authorities to frame policy and
implement the same forthwith whereby at least with
respect to the Government land the 7/12 abstracts may
be updated with an additional remarks, whether the
land is having mineral potential or not? And further
policy may be framed to make particular rank of
officers accountable in case of breach of such policy.
F. Such other and further relief or relieves as may
be deem fit, just and proper, in the facts and
circumstances of the case."
2. We may note, at the outset, that on the presentation of the
instant PIL, by order dated 23.08.2017, notice was issued to
the respondents, except respondent No.1 which was
represented by the Assistant Government Pleader. The
matter was once taken up on 27.06.2018 and it was noted
that no affidavits was filed by the State. However, after the
affidavits were by the respondents in the instant PIL,
repeated adjournments have been sought by the counsel for
the petitioner whenever the matter got listed, though it is
pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
Civil Applications were filed in the years 2017 and 2022 for
early listing of the matter.
3. Be that as it may, it is evident that the petitioner took two
years to file the instant PIL to challenge the order dated
30.12.2015 passed in favour of respondent No.6 for allotment
of different parcels of lands of village: Kuranga, Taluka:
Devbhoomi Dwarka on the premise that the allotment would
affect the valuable minerals such as Limestone and Marl of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/178/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
approximately 268 million tonnes in the area and further
there are irregularities and procedural lapses in the matter of
allotment, which is contrary to the prevailing provisions of
law as well as the policy, which resulted into loss to the
public exchequer to the tune of Rs.20,000/- crores. All these
assertions in the writ petition are vague.
4. Disclosing his credentials, it is stated that the petitioner is an
agriculturist having degree of Bachelor of Arts (Economics)
from Saurashtra University and owned various parcels of
agricultural lands within the district of Devbhoomi Dwarka,
particularly at Taluka: Kalyanpur as well as Dwarka. It is
stated that the petitioner has no personal interest in the
present public interest litigation and being a responsible and
active citizen, he has filed the present petition in order to
bring to the notice of this Court the grave irregularity
committed by the State authorities. It is stated that the
petitioner is a law abiding responsible citizen and has raised
issues pertaining to misuse of power, favouritism, irregularity
and illegality committed by the respective authorities, in the
public interest litigation.
5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is
that the land in question as well as the surrounding lands of
different villages were identified for the purpose of research
and reservation of minerals at least three times. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/178/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
researches were undertaken by the independent technical
agencies and as per the information of the petitioner, it was
found that there are valuable minerals such as Limestone and
Marl under the land in question. The information mentioned
in the writ petition were collected by the petitioner by
moving applications under the RTI Act in the year 2017. On
receipt of reply, representation was filed before the
competent authority on 03.07.2017 with the request to cancel
the order of the allotment dated 30.12.2015 and when no
response was received, the petitioner has filed the instant
PIL. The contention is that the respondent authorities have
violated the policy of the State, namely the Gujarat State
Mineral Policy, 2003 and the Resolution of the Revenue
Department that the land, which is having mineral potential
cannot be granted/ allotted without obtaining No Objection
certificate from the Commissioner, Industries and Mines
Department. In the instant case, no such procedure has been
followed and the allotment order being in breach of the
prevailing policy of the State Government is liable to be set
aside.
6. On a pointed query raised by the Court as to why the
petitioner has kept mum for two years from the date of
allotment when he was having agricultural lands in the area
and was well aware of the allotment order of the land in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/178/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
question in favour of respondent No.6, no reply at all could
be given by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It was,
however, argued that having collected information under the
RTI Act the petitioner has approached this Court and the
Public Interest Litigation cannot be rejected on the ground of
latches.
7. Coming to the response of the respondents, we may note the
averments in the affidavit dated 16.07.2018 of the Collector
Devbhoomi Dwarka, namely respondent No.4. A categorical
statement has been made therein that the writ petition
cannot be entertained on account of lapse of two years to
seek cancellation of the allotment order. It is pointed out that
parcels of land situated at village Kuranga was allotted to
respondent No.6 for Light Soda Ash, Dense Soda Ash and 50
Mega Watt captive power plant. The details of the plots
allotted to respondent No.6 has been mentioned therein. It is
further stated that as per the instructions in the Circular
dated 26.02.2004 issued by the Revenue Department,
wherein guidelines have been issued with respect to
obtaining necessary permissions and No-Objection certificate,
in the cases of allotment of lands in the areas notified as
mineral rich areas, instructions have also been issued with
respect to entering of details of such mineral rich areas in
their respective 7/12 abstracts and revenue records. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/178/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
copy of the Circular dated 26.02.2004 has been brought on
record of the said affidavit. It is further stated that details
about any specific area being mineral rich area is reflected in
the 7/12 abstracts after the Geology and Mines Department
undertakes a survey and determines as to whether the area is
a mineral rich area or not. It is after the said survey, if it is
found that a particular area or a particular survey number is
mineral rich area, those details are, thereafter, provided to
the Revenue Department and the same are reflected in the
7/12 abstracts notifying the same as mineral rich area.
8. So far as the lands in question are concerned, these areas are
neither demarcated nor notified as mineral rich areas and
since 7/12 abstracts did not reflect details of these areas
being mineral rich areas, permission from Geology and
Mining Department was not required to be obtained by the
Collector while passing the allotment order.
9. As regards the allotment, it is categorically stated that after
seeking opinion of different departments, the Collector got
approval from the Revenue Department, Government of
Gujarat on 09.10.2015 and the order of allotment was,
thereafter, passed on 30.12.2015. There is, thus, no
procedural lapse in the said process.
10. We may note that in an affidavit affirmed in the month of
October, 2018, the petitioner seeks to give a joint reply to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/178/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
averments and allegations in the affidavit of respondents
No.4 and 6. We may further note that the respondent No.6,
namely the allottee has also filed its response in an affidavit
sworn on 29.11.2017, wherein it is pointed out that on an
application filed by respondent No.6 dated 18.06.2012, public
hearing was granted for environment clearance on
06.05.2014. The required procedure for allotment was
scrupulously followed, details of which has been given in the
said affidavit.
11. It is pointed out by Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Counsel
for respondent No.6 that 495 hectares of private land was
purchased by the respondent No.6, the details of which has
been brought on record and about 77 hectares of
Government waste land was allotted for the purpose of
establishment of plant. Only 13% of the land utilized by the
respondent No.6 for establishment of the plant is
Government waste land. As the Government land was
scattered and surrounded by private lands, majority of the
private lands had been purchased by the answering
respondents through direct investments. There is, thus, no
substance in the contention of the petitioner of any
irregularity in the allotment process.
12. Coming to the credentials and the background of the
petitioner, it is categorically stated in the various paragraphs
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/178/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
of the affidavit of respondent No.6 that the petitioner
remained completely silent when the newspaper
advertisement was issued in November, 2015 intimating the
public at large about issuance of environmental clearance.
The construction was commenced in January, 2016. However,
the petitioner had tried to negotiate the deal by threat and
coercion of institution of legal proceedings with the officers
of the answering respondent No.6 on frivolous and baseless
allegations. Telephone calls were made by the petitioner on
08.04.2017 and 08.05.2017 from the mobile number
9725841973 mentioned in the said affidavit and demand was
raised for not initiating legal proceedings. On 08.08.2017, the
petitioner personally approached the concerned officers in
the office of the answering respondent No.6 at Prahalad
Nagar, Ahmedabad and threatened that if his demands were
not fulfilled, he would proceed to initiate legal proceedings in
the High Court. Call records from the mobile phone of the
officer of the answering respondent as well as extract of the
Visitor's Register (Entry No.17) maintained at the
Ahmedabad office of the answering respondent dated
08.08.2017, wherein mobile number used by the petitioner is
mentioned and signature of the petitioner can be found, have
been brought on record as Annexure-R-13 to the affidavit of
respondent No.6.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/178/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
13. It is pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for
respondent No.6 that if one looks at the dates of the calls and
visits made by the petitioner and the RTI applications moved
by him with the date of filing of the instant petition, it is clear
that the petitioner was trying to negotiate with the office of
respondent No.6 in order to extract money and when he
failed in his attempt, the instant PIL was filed after a period
of two years of the allotment, when the constructions were
completed and industry started running. It was pointed out
that the first RTI application was moved by the petitioner on
11.04.2017, two days after the first call was made by him on
08.04.2017. After the second call made on 08.05.2017, three
RTI applications were moved on 17.05.2017. After few days
of the visit on 08.08.2017 to the office of respondent No.6 at
Ahmedabad, the instant petition had been presented in this
Court on 21.08.2017. It is further pointed out that no reply to
the categorical statement made by the respondent No.6 in its
affidavit has been given by the petitioner filed in his reply
affidavit of October, 2018.
14. From the record, we may note that in the affidavit affirmed
by the petitioner in the month of October, 2018, a joint reply
is given to the affidavit filed by respondents No.4 and 6. It is
stated, at the outset, in paragraph No.1 of the said affidavit-
in-rejoinder that the petitioner is not dealing with the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/178/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
affidavit-in-reply filed by private respondent no.6 as well as
the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.4 parawise, but
that may not be construed as if the averments made or the
contentions made by respondents No.6 and No.4 in their
affidavits are accepted by the deponent.
15. This type of creative reply by the petitioner given to the
affidavits of respondents No.4 and 6 jointly is in itself a proof
of the fact that the petitioner had made an attempt to first
negotiate with the officers of respondent No.6 company to
extract money and when his effort to extract money from
them went in vain, on frivolous allegations by moving RTI
applications, he initiated the instant petition in the nature of
Public Interest Litigation.
16. We may further note the averments in paragraph No.7 of the
affidavit-in-rejoinder filed by the petitioner affirmed in the
month of October, 2018 in reply to the call details and extract
of register of visitor's entry submitted by respondent No.6,
wherein it is contended that these details are not significant
for the purpose of adjudication of the captioned petition and,
therefore, the petitioner does not want to deal with the said
contentions in totality.
17. In the further affidavit filed by respondent No.3, namely
Assistant Geologist (Technical), Commissioner of Geology and
Mining, Udhyog Bhawan, Gandhinagar in January, 2020, it is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/178/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
stated that the petitioner herein is an interested party in the
matter, inasmuch, as he was one of the applicants in the
matter of moving application for grant of lease for mineral
limestone, which is a major mineral found nearby the land in-
question. The individual application moved by the petitioner
and all other applications to grant lease for mineral limestone
had been rejected, in view of the amendments carried out in
the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,
1957 by way of Amendment Act of 2015. The application
moved by the petitioner for grant of mining lease was
through his enterprise, namely Gurukrupa Enterprise, which
was rejected in the year 2015, as ineligible by the Collector,
Devbhoomi Dwarka. The details of the application moved by
the petitioner for grant of lease of limestone minerals in
Survey No.308, village: Bhatwadia, Taluka: Kalyanpur,
District: Devbhoomi Dwarka and the rejection order of the
applicant being ineligible passed in the year 2015-16 have
been brought on record along with the said affidavit.
18. Taking note of the above facts reflected from the record of
the writ petition, we find it apt to discuss the law pertaining
to entertainability / maintainability of the Public Interest
Litigation.
19. In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. A Parent of
a Student of Medical College, Simla and others, (1985)
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/178/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
3 SCC 169, the Apex Court has noted that it is now settled
law that the Apex Court under Article 32 of the Constitution
and the High Courts under Article 226 can treat a letter as a
writ petition and take action upon it, but it is only a letter
addressed by an aggrieved person or a public spirited
individual or a social action group for enforcement of a
constitutional or legal right of a person in custody or of a
class or group of persons, who by reasons of poverty,
disability, or socially or economically disadvantaged position,
find it difficult to approach the Court for redress that the
Supreme Court or the High Court would be justified, nay
bound, to treat the letter as a writ petition. There may also
be cases where even a letter addressed for redressal of a
wrong done to an individual may be treated as a Writ Petition
where the Supreme Court or the High Court considers it
expedient to do so in the interests of justice. This is an
innovative strategy which has been evolved by the Supreme
Court. It is a highly effective weapon in the armoury of
the law for reaching social justice to the common man.
20. In the case of K.R. Srinivas vs. R.M. Premchand and
others, (1994) 6 SCC 620, the Apex Court while dealing
with the issue of latches in filing the Public Interest
Litigation, has observed that the writ petitioner, who comes
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/178/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
to the Court for relief in public interest must come not only
with clean hands, like any other writ petitioner, but must
further come with a clean heart, clean mind and a clean
objective.
21. In the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs.State of W.B.,
(2004) 3 SCC 349, the Apex Court has elaborated on the
law pertaining to the locus standi of the petitioner to present
the petition in public interest and genuineness thereof by
saying that when there is material to show that a petition
styled as a public interest litigation is nothing but a
camouflage to foster personal disputes, said petition is to be
thrown out. Dealing with the aspect of importance of Public
Interest Litigation in the field of administration of law, it was
observed that the Public Interest Litigation should not be
"publicity interest litigation" or "private interest litigation" or
"politics interest litigation" or the latest trend "paise income
litigation". It was observed that Courts of justice should not
be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by
resorting to the extraordinary jurisdiction. A person acting
bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of
public interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and
can approach the Court to wipe out violation of fundamental
rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not
for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/178/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
oblique consideration. If not properly regulated and abuse
averted it becomes also a tool in unscrupulous hands to
release vendetta and wreck vengeance, as well. There must
be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation.
It cannot also be invoked by a person or a body of persons to
further his or their personal causes or satisfy his or their
personal grudge and enmity.
22. The observations of the Apex Court in the case of Ramjas
Foundation vs. Union of India, 1993 Supp (2) SCC 20;
K.R. Srinivas(supra); Janata Dal vs. H.S.Chowdhary,
(1992) 4 SCC 305 were noted in paragraph
Nos.'5',6','7','8',9' and '10' as under:-
"5.It is necessary to take note of the meaning of
expression 'public interest litigation'. In Strouds Judicial
Dictionary, Volume 4 (IV Edition), 'Public Interest' is
defined thus:
"Public Interest (1) a matter of public or general
interest does not mean that which is interesting as
gratifying curiosity or a love of information or
amusement but that in which a class of the community
have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which
their legal rights or liabilities are affected."
6. In Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), "public
interest" is defined as follows :
"Public Interest.- Something in which the public, or
some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities
are affected. It does not mean anything the particular
localities, which may be affected by the matters in
question. Interest shared by national Government."
7. In Janata Dal case (supra) this Court considered the
scope of public interest litigation. In para 52 of the said
judgment, after considering what is public interest, has
laid down as follows :
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/178/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
"53. The expression 'litigation' means a legal action
including all proceedings therein initiated in a Court of
law for the enforcement of right or seeking a remedy.
Therefore, lexically the expression "PIL" means the legal
action initiated in a Court of law for the enforcement of
public interest or general interest in which the public or
a class of the community have pecuniary interest or
some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities
are affected."
8. In paras 60, 61 and 62 of the said judgment, it was
pointed out as follows:
"62. Be that as it may, it is needless to emphasis
that the requirement of locus standi of a party to a
litigation is mandatory, because the legal capacity of the
party to any litigation whether in private or public
action in relation to any specific remedy sought for has
to be primarily ascertained at the threshold.
9. In para 98 of the said judgment, it has further been
pointed out as follows:
"98 While this Court has laid down a chain of
notable decisions with all emphasis at their command
about the importance and significance of this newly
developed doctrine of PIL, it has also hastened to sound
a red alert and a note of severe warning that Courts
should not allow its process to be abused by a mere
busy body or a meddlesome interloper or wayfarer or
officious intervener without any interest or concern
except for personal gain or private profit or other
oblique consideration."
10. In subsequent paras of the said judgment, it was
observed as follows:-
"109. It is thus clear that only a person acting bona
fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of
PIL will alone have as locus standi and can approach the
Court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy,
suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but
not a person for personal gain or private profit or
political motive or any oblique consideration. Similarly a
vexatious petition under the colour of PIL, brought
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/178/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
before the Court for vindicating any personal grievance,
deserves rejection at the threshold".
23. Further observations in paragraphs No.'11','12','13','14','15'
and '16' are relevant to be extracted hereinunder:-
"11. It is depressing to note that on account of such
trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts,
innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise
could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the
genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in
fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and
extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the
ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose
fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose
grievance go unnoticed, un-represented and unheard;
yet we cannot avoid but express our opinion that while
genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to
civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of
millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons
sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony
and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in
incarceration for long years, persons suffering from
undue delay in service matters - government or private,
persons awaiting the disposal of cases wherein huge
amounts of public revenue or unauthorized collection of
tax amounts are locked up, detenu expecting their
release from the detention orders etc. etc. are all
standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the
fond hope of getting into the Courts and having their
grievances redressed, the busy bodies, meddlesome
interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having
absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or
private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others
or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of
publicity break the queue muffing their faces by wearing
the mask of public interest litigation and get into the
Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and
thus criminally waste the valuable time of the Courts and
as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors
of the court never moves, which piquant situation
creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants
and resultantly they loose faith in the administration of
our judicial system.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/178/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
12. Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be
used with great care and circumspection and the
judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind
the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private
malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not
lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the
armory of law for delivering social justice to the citizens.
The attractive brand name of public interest litigation
should not be used for suspicious products of mischief. It
should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or
public injury and not publicity oriented or founded on
personal vendetta. As indicated above, Court must be
careful to see that a body of persons or member of
public, who approaches the court is acting bona fide and
not for personal gain or private motive or political
motivation or other oblique consideration. The Court
must not allow its process to be abused for oblique
considerations. Some persons with vested interest
indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process
either by force of habit or from improper motives. Often
they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap
popularity. The petitions of such busy bodies deserve to
be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in
appropriate cases with exemplary costs.
13. The Council for Public Interest Law set up by the
Ford Foundation in USA defined the "public interest
litigation" in its report of Public Interest Law, USA, 1976
as follows:
"Public Interest Law is the name that has recently been
given to efforts provide legal representation to
previously unrepresented groups and interests. Such
efforts have been undertaken in the recognition that
ordinary market place for legal services fails to provide
such services to significant segments of the population
and to significant interests. Such groups and interests
include the proper environmentalists, consumers, racial
and ethnic minorities and others."
14. The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the
credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie
correctness or nature of information given by him; (c)
the information being not vague and indefinite. The
information should show gravity and seriousness
involved. Court has to strike balance between two
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/178/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
conflicting interests; (i) nobody should be allowed to
indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the
character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief
and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for
oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such
case, however, the Court cannot afford to be liberal. It
has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of
redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon
the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the Executive
and the Legislature. The Court has to act ruthlessly
while dealing with imposters and busy bodies or
meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited
holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They
pretend to act in the name of Pro Bono Publico, though
they have no interest of the public or even of their own
to protect.
15. Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith,
and prevent law from crafty invasions. Courts must
maintain the social balance by interfering where
necessary for the sake of justice and refuse to interfere
where it is against the social interest and public good.
(See State of Maharashtra vs. Prabhu, (1994 (2) SCC
481), and Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation
vs. M/s GAR Re-Rolling Mills and Anr., (AIR 1994 SC
2151). No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the
Court time and public money in order to get his affairs
settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to
justice should not be misused as a licence to file
misconceived and frivolous petitions. (See Dr. B.K.
Subbarao vs. Mr. K. Parasaran, (1996) 7 JT 265). Today
people rush to Courts to file cases in profusion under
this attractive name of public interest. They must inspire
confidence in Courts and among the public.
16. As noted supra, a time has come to weed out the
petitions, which though titled as public interest
litigations are in essence something else. It is shocking
to note that Courts are flooded with large number of so
called public interest litigations where even a minuscule
percentage can legitimately be called as public interest
litigations. Though the parameters of public interest
litigation have been indicated by this Court in large
number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and
objectives, Courts are entertaining such petitions and
wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above,
could be otherwise utilized for disposal of genuine cases.
Though in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Ors. v. Jitendra
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/178/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
Kumar Mishra and Ors. (AIR 1999 SC 114), this Court
held that in service matters PILs should not be
entertained, the inflow of so- called PILs involving
service matters continues unabated in the Courts and
strangely are entertained. The least the High Courts
could do is to throw them out on the basis of the said
decision. The other interesting aspect is that in the PILs,
official documents are being annexed without even
indicating as to how the petitioner came to possess
them. In one case, it was noticed that an interesting
answer was given as to its possession. It was stated that
a packet was lying on the road and when out of curiosity
the petitioner opened it, he found copies of the official
documents. Whenever such frivolous pleas are taken to
explain possession, the Court should do well not only to
dismiss the petitions but also to impose exemplary costs.
It would be desirable for the Courts to filter out the
frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as afore-
stated so that the message goes in the right direction
that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the
approval of the Courts."
24. Previous decisions of the Apex Court pertaining to the
entertainability of the Public Interest Litigation noted in
paragraphs No. '18','20','21','22','23','24','25','26' and '27'
are also relevant to be extracted hereinunder: -
"18. In S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India, 1981 Supp SCC
87, it was emphatically pointed out that the relaxation of
the rule of locus standi in the field of PIL does not give
any right to a busybody or meddlesome interloper to
approach the Court under the guise of a public interest
litigant. He has also left the following note of caution:
"24. But we must be careful to see that the member of
the public, who approaches the court in cases of this
kind, is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or
private profit or political motivation or other oblique
consideration. The court must not allow its process to be
abused by politicians and others to delay legitimate
administrative action or to gain a political objective."
xxx xxx xxx
20. Khalid, J. in his separate supplementing judgment
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/178/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
in Sachidanand Pandey vs. State of W.B., 1987 (2)
SCC 295 said:
"Today public spirited litigants rush to courts to file
cases in profusion under this attractive name. They
must inspire confidence in courts and among the public.
They must be above suspicion.
* * *
Public interest litigation has now come to stay. But
one is led to think that it poses a threat to courts and
public alike. Such cases are now filed without any
rhyme or reason. It is, therefore, necessary to lay down
clear guidelines and to outline the correct parameters
for entertainment of such petitions. If courts do not
restrict the free flow of such cases in the name of public
interest litigations, the traditional litigation will suffer
and the courts of law, instead of dispensing justice, will
have to take upon themselves administrative and
executive functions.
* * *
I will be second to none in extending help when
such help is required. But this does not mean that the
doors of this Court are always open for anyone to walk
in. It is necessary to have some self- imposed restraint
on public interest litigants."
21. Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. (as he then was) speaking
for the Bench in Ramsharan Autyanuprasi vs. Union
of India, (1989 Supp (1) SCC 251), was in full
agreement with the view expressed by Khalid, J. in
Sachidanand Pandey's case (supra) and added that
'public interest litigation' is an instrument of the
administration of justice to be used properly in proper
cases. See also separate judgment by Pathak, J. (as he
then was) in Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of
India, (1984 (3) SCC 161).
22. Sarkaria, J. in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai vs.
Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed & Ors. (1976
(1) SCC 671) expressed his view that the application
of the busybody should be rejected at the threshold in
the following terms: (SCC p. 683, para 37) "
"37. It will be seen that in the context of locus standi to
apply for a writ of certiorari, an applicant may
ordinarily fall in any of these categories : (i) 'person
aggrieved'; (ii) 'stranger'; (iii) busybody or meddlesome
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/178/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
interloper. Persons in the last category are easily
distinguishable from those coming under the first two
categories. Such persons interfere in things which do
not concern them. They masquerade as crusaders for
justice. They pretend to act in the name of pro bono
publico, though they have no interest of the public or
even of their own to protect. They indulge in the
pastime of meddling with the judicial process either by
force of habit or from improper motives. Often, they are
actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap
popularity; while the ulterior intent of some applicants
in this category, may be no more than spoking the
wheels of administration. The High Court should do
well to reject the applications of such busybodies at the
threshold."
23. Krishna Iyer, J. in Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar
Union (Regd.) Sundri and Ors. v. Union of India,
(1981 (1) SCC 568) in stronger terms stated: (SCC
p.589, para 48)
"48. If a citizen is no more than a wayfarer or officious
intervener without any interest or concern beyond what
belongs to any one of the 660 million people of this
country, the door of the court will not be ajar for him."
24. In Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh
Samiti v. State of U.P., (1990 (4) SCC 449),
Sabyasachi Mukharji, C.J. observed: (SCC p.452, para
8)
"While it is the duty of this Court to enforce
fundamental rights, it is also the duty of this Court to
ensure that this weapon under Article 32 should not be
misused or permitted to be misused creating a
bottleneck in the superior court preventing other
genuine violation of fundamental rights being
considered by the court."
25. In Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of
India, (1991 (4) SCC 584, 610), Ranganath Mishra,
C.J. in his separate judgment while concurring with the
conclusions of the majority judgment has said thus:
(SCC p.610, para 21)
"I am prepared to assume, nay, concede, that public
activists should also be permitted to espouse the cause
of the poor citizens but there must be a limit set to
such activity and nothing perhaps should be done
which would affect the dignity of the Court and bring
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/178/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
down the serviceability of the institution to the people
at large. Those who are acquainted with jurisprudence
and enjoy social privilege as men educated in law owe
an obligation to the community of educating it properly
and allowing the judicial process to continue unsoiled."
26.In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, (1991 (1)
SCC 598) it was observed as follows:
"Public interest litigation cannot be invoked by a
person or body of persons to satisfy his or its personal
grudge and enmity. If such petitions under Article 32,
are entertained it would amount to abuse of process of
the court, preventing speedy remedy to other genuine
petitioners from this Court. Personal interest cannot be
enforced through the process of this Court under
Article 32 of the Constitution in the garb of a public
interest litigation. Public interest litigation
contemplates legal proceeding for vindication or
enforcement of fundamental rights of a group of
persons or community which are not able to enforce
their fundamental rights on account of their incapacity,
poverty or ignorance of law. A person invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 must
approach this Court for the vindication of the
fundamental rights of affected persons and not for the
purpose of vindication of his personal grudge or
enmity. It is the duty of this Court to discourage such
petitions and to ensure that the course of justice is not
obstructed or polluted by unscrupulous litigants by
invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for
personal matters under the garb of the public interest
litigation".
27. In the words of Bhagwati, J. (as he then was) "the
courts must be careful in entertaining public interest
litigations" or in the words of Sarkaria, J. "the
applications of the busybodies should be rejected at the
threshold itself" and as Krishna Iyer, J. has pointed out,
"the doors of the courts should not be ajar for such
vexatious litigants"."
25. In the State of Uttranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal
and others, (2010) 3 SCC 402, the Apex Court while
dealing with the Public Interest Litigation challenging the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/178/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
appointment of Advocate General, has dealt with the issue of
abuse of process of Court in the name of Public Interest
Litigation. In order to curb such tendency effectively, it has
given an authoritative pronouncement to deal with the
manner in which the Public Interest Litigation is to be
entertained by the Court, considering the definition of 'Public
Interest Litigation', the origin and evolution of the Public
Interest Litigation in India, discussions on various issues
pertaining to maintainability of the Public Interest Litigation
were discussed elaborately.
26. Taking note of the abuse of the Public Interest Litigation over
the period of time, it was noted therein that unfortunately, of
late, such an important jurisdiction which has been carefully
carved out, created and nurtured with great care and caution
by the Courts, is being blatantly abused by filing some
petitions with oblique motives. Time has come when genuine
and bona fide public interest litigation must be encouraged
whereas frivolous public interest litigation should be
discouraged. To protect and preserve this important
jurisdiction in the larger interest of the people of this
Country, effective steps must be taken to prevent and cure its
abuse on the basis of monetary and non- monetary directions
by the Courts. It was noted that the Apex Court has devised
number of strategies to ensure that the attractive brand
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/178/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
name of public interest litigation should not be allowed to be
used for suspicious products of mischief and in the case of
BALCO Employees' Union vs. Union of India, (2002) 2
SCC 333, the Apex Court has instructed the High Courts to
be more selective in entertaining the public interest
litigations.
27. Various decisions of the Apex Court making an effort to curb
the menace of frivolous and vexatious petitions in the name of
Public Interest Litigation have been noted in the paragraphs
No.'145' to '158' of the said decision as under:-
"145. In S. P. Gupta's case (supra), this Court has found
that this liberal standard makes it critical to limit
standing to individuals "acting bona fide. To avoid
entertaining frivolous and vexatious petitions under the
guise of PIL, the Court has excluded two groups of
persons from obtaining standing in PIL petitions. First,
the Supreme Court has rejected awarding standing to
"meddlesome interlopers". Second, the Court has denied
standing to interveners bringing public interest litigation
for personal gain.
146. In Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh
Samiti (supra), the Court withheld standing from the
applicant on grounds that the applicant brought the suit
motivated by enmity between the parties.
147.Thus, the Supreme Court has attempted to create a
body of jurisprudence that accords broad enough
standing to admit genuine PIL petitions, but nonetheless
limits standing to thwart frivolous and vexations
petitions. The Supreme Court broadly tried to curtail the
frivolous public interest litigation petitions by two
methods- one monetary and second, non-monetary.
148.The first category of cases is that where the court on
filing frivolous public interest litigation petitions,
dismissed the petitions with exemplary costs. In Neetu v.
State of Pubjab & Others AIR 2007 SC 758, the Court
concluded that it is necessary to impose exemplary costs
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/178/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
to ensure that the message goes in the right direction
that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the
approval of the Courts.
149.In S.P. Anand v. H.D. Deve Gowda & Others AIR
1997 SC 272, the Court warned that it is of utmost
importance that those who invoke the jurisdiction of this
Court seeking a waiver of the locus standi rule must
exercise restraint in moving the Court by not plunging in
areas wherein they are not well-versed.
150. In Sanjeev Bhatnagar v. Union of India & Others
AIR 2005 SC 2841, this Court went a step further by
imposing a monetary penalty against an Advocate for
filing a frivolous and vexatious PIL petition. The Court
found that the petition was devoid of public interest, and
instead labelled it as "publicity interest litigation." Thus,
the Court dismissed the petition with costs of Rs.10,000/-.
151. Similarly, in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State
of Maharashtra & Others (2005) 1 SCC 590, the
Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's monetary
penalty against a member of the Bar for filing a frivolous
and vexatious PIL petition. This Court found that the
petition was nothing but a camouflage to foster personal
dispute. Observing that no one should be permitted to
bring disgrace to the noble profession, the Court
concluded that the imposition of the penalty of Rs. 25,000
by the High Court was appropriate. Evidently, the
Supreme Court has set clear precedent validating the
imposition of monetary penalties against frivolous and
vexatious PIL petitions, especially when filed by
Advocates.
152. This Court, in the second category of cases, even
passed harsher orders. In Charan Lal Sahu & Others v.
Giani Zail Singh & Another AIR 1984 SC 309, the
Supreme Court observed that, "we would have been
justified in passing a heavy order of costs against the two
petitioners" for filing a "light-hearted and indifferent" PIL
petition. However, to prevent "nipping in the bud a well-
founded claim on a future occasion," the Court opted
against imposing monetary costs on the petitioners." In
this case, this Court concluded that the petition was
careless, meaningless, clumsy and against public interest.
Therefore, the Court ordered the Registry to initiate
prosecution proceedings against the petitioner under the
Contempt of Courts Act. Additionally, the court forbade
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/178/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
the Registry from entertaining any future PIL petitions
filed by the petitioner, who was an advocate in this case.
153. In J. Jayalalitha v. Government of Tamil Nadu &
Others (1999) 1 SCC 53, this court laid down that
public interest litigation can be filed by any person
challenging the misuse or improper use of any public
property including the political party in power for the
reason that interest of individuals cannot be placed above
or preferred to a larger public interest.
154.This court has been quite conscious that the forum of
this court should not be abused by any one for personal
gain or for any oblique motive. In BALCO (supra), this
court held that the jurisdiction is being abused by
unscrupulous persons for their personal gain. Therefore,
the court must take care that the forum be not abused by
any person for personal gain.
155.In Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware (supra), this court
expressed its anguish on misuse of the forum of the court
under the garb of public interest litigation and observed
that the
"public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be
used with great care and circumspection and the
judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind
the beautiful veil of public interest, an ugly private
malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not
lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the
armoury of law for delivering social justice to the
citizens.... The court must not allow its process to be
abused for oblique considerations...."
156. In Thaware's case (supra), the Court encouraged
the imposition of a non-monetary penalty against a PIL
petition filed by a member of the bar. The Court directed
the Bar Councils and Bar Associations to ensure that no
member of the Bar becomes party as petitioner or in
aiding and/or abetting files frivolous petitions carrying
the attractive brand name of Public Interest Litigation.
This direction impels the Bar Councils and Bar
Associations to disbar members found guilty of filing
frivolous and vexatious PIL petitions.
157. In Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. v. Prem Chandra
Mishra & Others AIR 2008 SC 913, this Court
observed as under:
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/178/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
"10. '...12. It is depressing to note that on account of such
trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts,
innumerable days are wasted, the time which otherwise
could have been spent for disposal of cases of the genuine
litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and
developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our
long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the
oppressed and the needy, whose fundamental rights are
infringed and violated and whose grievances go
unnoticed, un-represented and unheard; yet we cannot
avoid but express our opinion that while genuine litigants
with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters
involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees
and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death
facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced
to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long
years, persons suffering from undue delay in service
matters -government or private, persons awaiting the
disposal of cases wherein huge amounts of public revenue
or unauthorized collection of tax amounts are locked up,
detenu expecting their release from the detention orders
etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for
years with the fond hope of getting into the Courts and
having their grievances redressed, the busybodies,
meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious
interveners having absolutely no public interest except
for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or
as a proxy of others or for any other extraneous
motivation or for glare of publicity break the queue
muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public interest
litigation and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and
frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable
time of the Courts and as a result of which the queue
standing outside the doors of the Courts never moves,
which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds
of the genuine litigants and resultantly they loose faith in
the administration of our judicial system."
158.The Court cautioned by observing that: (Holicow
case (supra)
"10. '...13. Public interest litigation is a weapon which has
to be used with great care and circumspection and the
judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind
the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice,
vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking. It
is to be used as an effective weapon in the armory of law
for delivering social justice to the citizens. The attractive
brand name of public interest litigation should not be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/178/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be
aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public
injury and not publicity oriented or founded on personal
vendetta.
* * *
15. The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the
credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie
correctness or nature of information given by him;(c) the
information being not vague and indefinite. The
information should show gravity and seriousness
involved. Court has to strike balance between two
conflicting interests; (i) nobody should be allowed to
indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the
character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief
and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for
oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such
case, however, the Court cannot afford to be liberal. It
has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of
redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon
the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the Executive
and the Legislature. The Court has to act ruthlessly while
dealing with imposters and busybodies or meddlesome
interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men.
They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to
act in the name of Pro Bono Publico though they have no
interest of the public or even of their own to protect."
28. The Apex Court has further held that to entertain the Public
Interest Litigation, the Court has to be satisfied about (a) the
credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness
or nature of information given by him; (c) the information
being not vague and indefinite. The information should show
the gravity and seriousness involved. The Court has to strike
balance between two conflicting interests: (i) nobody should
be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations
besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/178/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to
assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions.
29. It was held that in such a case, the Court cannot afford to be
liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the
guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach
upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the
Executive and the Legislature. The Court has to act ruthlessly
while dealing with imposters and busybodies or meddlesome
interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. The
judges exercising the jurisdiction should be extremely careful
to see that behind the beautiful veil of PIL, an ugly private
malice, vested interest and/or publicity- seeking is not
lurking. The Court should ensure that there is no abuse of the
process of the Court.
30. A slew of directions issued by the Apex Court in the case of
State of Uttranchal (supra) in paragraph No.'181' are to be
noted hereinunder:-
"181. We have carefully considered the facts of the
present case. We have also examined the law declared by
this court and other courts in a number of judgments. In
order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, it has
become imperative to issue the following directions:-
(1) The courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL
and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for
extraneous considerations.
(2) Instead of every individual judge devising his own
procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it
would be appropriate for each High Court to properly
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/178/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and
discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives.
Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have
not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within
three months. The Registrar General of each High Court
is directed to ensure that a copy of the Rules prepared by
the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this
court immediately thereafter.
(3) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of
the petitioner before entertaining a P.I.L.
(4) The Court should be prima facie satisfied regarding
the correctness of the contents of the petition before
entertaining a PIL.
(5) The Court should be fully satisfied that substantial
public interest is involved before entertaining the
petition.
(6) The Court should ensure that the petition which
involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must
be given priority over other petitions.
(7) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure
that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm
or public injury. The court should also ensure that there
is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive
behind filing the public interest litigation.
(8) The Court should also ensure that the petitions filed
by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must
be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by
adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions
and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations."
31. Taking note of the above, when we revert to the facts of the
case at hand, then the conclusion is obvious that this is a
glaring example of the grossest abuse of process of the
Court. In the present case, the litigant is a person whose
applications for grant of mining lease in the surrounding land
have been rejected in the years 2015 and 2016 with the
advent of the amendment in the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/178/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
32. The allotment of Government waste land for the project of
respondent No.6 was made in the year 2015 by the Collector
after adopting due procedure and obtaining environmental
clearance etc. The construction work of the project was
commenced in the year 2016. Apart from 77 hectares of
Government waste land, the answering respondent No.6 had
purchased 495 hectares of land directly from the farmers by
private negotiation. When the project of manufacturing 1500
MT of Soda Ash per day for captive use was at the verge of
completion, the petitioner had tried to deal with respondent
No.6 by threat and coercion of legal proceedings against the
Company. The assertions in the affidavit of respondent No.6
that the petitioner made calls from Mobile No.9725841973 on
08.04.2017 and 08.05.2017 and tried to negotiate the
demand for not initiating legal proceedings, have not been
categorically denied by the petitioner. The contention of the
respondent No.6 in the affidavit filed on its behalf that the
petitioner had personally approached the concerned office of
the respondent No.6 on 08.08.2017 at Ahmedabad and
threatened to initiate legal proceedings, if his demands were
not fulfilled, has not been categorically denied. The relevant
extracts of the visitors' register maintained by the office of
the answering respondent at its Ahmedabad office dated
08.08.2017 and the call records of the mobile phone of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/178/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
officer of the respondent company showing the mobile
number used by the petitioner, as mentioned in the visitor's
register, have not been denied. The assertions in the
affidavit-in-rejoinder filed by the petitioner is that he does not
propose to file any parawise reply to the affidavit filed by the
respondent No.6, but the same should not be treated as his
acceptance to the averments therein, is an innovative style of
reply.
33. The fact that the instant petition in the nature of Public
Interest Litigation has been filed in order to extract money
from the respondent No.6 company, in whose favour the land
in question had been allotted in the year 2015; the fact that
the allotment was in public domain and petitioner did not
object to the same, and further that lapse on the part of the
petitioner in approaching this Court after two years has not
been explained, are proved. After filing of the affidavits by
the respondent no.6 and the State, the petitioner had not
pursued the instant petition for a period of about 7 years and
kept it pending as the sword hanging on the head of the
respondents No.6. This petition, thus, has proved to be
"paise income litigation" filed by unscrupulous litigant which
results in the abuse of the process of the Court with impunity.
34. Coming further on the issue raised hereinabove, the land in
question were not recorded in 7/12 abstracts as a mineral
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/178/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
rich area and, therefore, there was no question of seeking
permission or "No Objection" from the Mining Department by
the Collector. In the affidavit of the Assistant Geologist
(Technical), Commissioner of Geology and Mining,
Gandhinagar impleaded as respondent No.3, it has come that
the mining lease applications filed by the petitioner, which
were rejected in the year 2015-16 with respect to certain
parcels of land overlapped with the land purchased by the
respondent No.6 from the owners. By the order dated
30.12.2015, the Government waste land was alloted in favour
of respondent No.6 for establishment of new Soda Ash
manufacturing plant pursuant to their application dated
18.06.2012, which was preferred pursuant to the MOU in
Vibrant Gujarat, 2011. The block known as Karunga-D Block
had been redesigned and the process of its notification for
auction was in progress at the time of filing of the affidavit of
the respondent No.3 in the month of January, 2020. It has
come on record that in the process of allotment of the land in
question, before granting "No objection" for environmental
clearance, public notice was issued in the year 2014. The
petitioner has approached this Court in the year 2017 at the
fag end of completion of the project when the entire
construction was completed. Further the plant of the
answering respondent No.6 has been commissioned and is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/178/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
now in full production.
35. For the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that the
petitioner cannot be said to be genuine litigant, a public
spirited person having genuine interest in the matter of
preservation of the land, allegedly being a mineral rich land.
The writ petition has been filed with extraneous and ulterior
motive and, hence, is liable to be dismissed with exemplary
cost of Rs.7,00,000/-(Rupees Seven Lakhs only). The cost
amount shall be deposited by the petitioner with the
Registrar General, High Court of Gujarat, within the period of
four weeks from today, which shall be transmitted in the
account of the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority. The
cost amount shall be utilized by the Legal Services Authority
for the purposes of upgradation of infrastructure in the Child
Care Institutions in and around the City of Ahmedabad. The
Member Secretary, Gujarat State Legal Services Authority is
directed to forward a report to the Registrar General, High
Court of Gujarat after the utilization of the said amount under
the directions of the Executive Chairperson, Gujarat State
Legal Services Authority.
36. With the above, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected Civil Application also stands
dismissed.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)
SUDHIR
