Gujarat High Court
Ajay Rameshbhai Trivedi vs State Of Gujarat on 2 May, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/90/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/WRIT PETITION (PIL) (WRIT PETITION (PIL)) NO. 90 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 90 of 2021
==========================================================
AJAY RAMESHBHAI TRIVEDI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance (WPPIL No. 90 of 2021):
DIPESH V DALAL(7366) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
G K VAGHANI(7830) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
K T BELADIYA(9101) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Opponent(s) No. 1 to 8
MR DIGANT M POPAT(5385) for the Opponent(s) No. 12
MR. R.S.SANJANWALA, SR. ADV. WITH MR. AADIT R
SANJANWALA(9918) for the Opponent(s) No. 10,11
MR. MAULIK NANAVATI FOR NANAVATI & CO.(7105) for the Opponent(s)
No. 9
Appearance (CA No. 1 of 2025):
Mr. R. Sanjanwala, Sr. Adv. With Mr. Adit R. Sanjanwala, Adv., for the
Applicants.
Ms.Hetal Patel, AGP for respondent Nos. 2 to 8.
Mr. Maulik G. Nanavati, Adv. For R-10.
Mr. Dipesh V. Dalal, Adv. With Mr. G.K.Vaghani, Adv. For respondent No.1.
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 02/05/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
The present Public Interest Litigation has been filed in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/90/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025
undefined
month of July, 2021 with the following reliefs :
"(A) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ,
order or direction, directing the respondent authorities to
forthwith remove/demolish the illegal and unauthorised
construction put up by respondent Nos. 10 and 11 on land bearing
Block No. 187, 225, 226 and 227 of Village Kansad, Taluka
Choryasi, District Surat, more particularly situated near the Jail
premises of respondent No.7 as being in breach of terms and
conditions of order dated 7.8.2010 made by respondent no.2
Collector r/w the affidavit-cum-undertaking dated 1.11.2020, in
pursuance to various representations made by the petitioner and
respondent no.7 authority, in the interest of justice;
(B) Pending the disposal of the Public Interest Litigation, this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities
to produce before this Hon'ble Court the Action Taken Report in
pursuance to various representations made by the petitioner and
respondent no.7 authority, in the interest of justice;
(C) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ,
order or direction, directing the any higher investigation agency to
investigate this huge corruption scandal done by the SUDA officers
and the developer/builder of the said society, in the interest of
justice;
(D) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant such other and
further reliefs as may be deeded fit and proper by this Hon'ble
Court, in the interest of justice."
2. The petitioner claims to be the local resident of the Surat City
and is engaged in textile handwork business on contractual basis.
The petitioner claims to the whistle blower, who has exposed many
corruption scandals in the past. It is stated in the writ petition that
the petitioner is raising a concern with respect to the illegal and
unauthorized construction put up by the respondent No.10 society,
more particular near the jail premises, namely Lajpore Central Jail,
Surat. It is further stated that the petitioner has never faced any
contempt proceedings nor any adverse comments or cost has ever
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/90/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025
undefined
been imposed against the petitioner. A further statement is that the
petitioner is filling the present petition purely in the interest of the
public, on his own and not at the instance of any person or
organization and all the costs of the litigation, including the
advocate's fee, are being borne by the petitioner.
3. Taking note of all the statements made in the writ petition
with regard to the credentials of the petitioner, we may also note
that the petitioner claims to be the RTI activist, and states that
inspite of having made several representations about the illegal
constructions before the authorities concerned, when nothing was
done, he was constrained to file the present writ petition with the
reliefs as noted hereinabove.
4. Mr. R.S.Sanjanwala, the learned senior advocate assisted by
Mr. Adit Sanjanwala, the learned advocate appearing for the
respondent Nos. 10 and 11 has drawn attention of the Court to the
Civil Application No.1 of 2025 filed by the said respondents
disclosing the facts assailing the bona fide of the petitioner to file
the present PIL. By order dated 25.04.2025, on the request made by
Mr. G.K.Vaghani, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner,
we granted time to file reply to the contents of the Civil
Application.
5. Having perused the contents of the Civil Application and the
reply of the petitioner to the Civil Application filed by the
respondent Nos. 10 and 11, pertinent is to note that a categorical
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/90/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025
undefined
statement has been made by the respondent Nos. 10 and 11/the
applicants in the Civil Application that all allegations made by the
petitioner in the writ petition regarding illegalities in the
constructions are wholly motivated. To assail the bona fide of the
petitioner, it is brought on record that the petitioner namely Ajay
Rameshbhai Trivedi has been involved in a blackmailing scandal in
District Surat to extort money and the First Information Report
bearing No.11210015250035 dated 01.02.2025 has been registered
against him by DCB Police Station, Surat City under sections 308(5),
308(7) and 54 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Sanhita. The FIR records
that the petitioner had blackmailed one Mahendrakumar Dhirajlal
Patel to pay rupees five crores failing which a complaint would be
made against him in relation to discharge of the chemicals by the
companies owned by him so that the said companies were closed
by the GPCB. The FIR records that the sting operation was
conducted by the police authorities based on the complaint of
Mahendrakumar Dhirajlal Patel and in the sting operation, the
petitioner Ajay Rameshbhai Trivedi was caught red handed taking
extortion money of Rs.45 lakhs. The said money has been
recovered by the police authorities as muddamal. The bail
application filed by the petitioner, namely Ajay Rameshbhai Trivedi,
has been rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat. The
documents in support of the said assertions are appended with the
Civil Application. Mr. Sanjanwala, the learned senior advocate
appearing for the respondent Nos. 10 and 11 relying upon the said
documents on record would submit that the petitioner namely Ajay
Rameshbhai Trivedi by no angle can be said to be a public spirited
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/90/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025
undefined
litigant and the instant PIL filed by him is to espouse his personal
agenda of blackmailing and extorting money by exerting threats.
6. Attention of the Court is invited to the decisions of the Apex
Court holding that the public interest litigation is to be used as an
effective weapon in the armory of law for delivering social justice
to the citizens, but its use has to be with great care and
circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see
that behind the beautiful veil of the public interest an ugly private
malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking. It
was argued that where it is shown that a petition styled as public
interest litigation is camouflage to foster personal dispute or filed
by unscrupulous person for ulterior motives, the said petition is to
be thrown out at the inception. A person acting bona fide and
having sufficient interest in the proceedings of public interest
litigation, will alone have a locus standi and can approach the
court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine
infractions of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or
private profit or political motive or for any oblique consideration.
7. We may further note that in reply filed on behalf of the
petitioner namely Ajay Rameshbhai Trivedi, it is admitted that the
petitioner is in judicial custody at Lajpore Sub-Jail, Surat. The
personal affidavit of Ajay Rameshbhai Trivedi identified before the
Jailer, Lajpor Central Prison, Surat states that the First Information
Report registered against him by another individual on 01.02.2025
has nothing to do with the present proceedings. The learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/90/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025
undefined
counsel for the petitioner, however, agitated that the writ petition
has been instituted to address the unauthorized construction
undertaken by the respondent No.10 society in close proximity to
the jail premises, which posed significant and imminent threat to
the public safety and security. The society is guilty of using false
documents as true before the competent authority to avail the
development permission. The contention is that with the fact that
the petitioner has been lodged in judicial custody on account of
some complaint of third person, wherein guilt of the petitioner is to
be established upon a final adjudication by the competent court of
law, the cause shown for filling the present PIL remains unaffected.
The locus standi of the petitioner to maintain the petition raising
the issue of unauthorized construction made by the respondent
No.10 society, cannot be questioned.
8. Taking note of the above submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, in order to ascertain that the petitioner
be permitted to maintain the PIL ignoring the allegations made
against him, we are required to discuss the law laid down by the
Apex Court pertaining to the scope and maintainability of the
Public Interest Litigation. In Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. State of W.B.
[(2004) 3 SCC 349], the Apex Court was dealing with the question
of locus standi of the petitioner therein to present the petition in
public interest and that whether the public interest litigation filed
under Article 32 of the Constitution was a genuine public interest
litigation.While holding that the person acting bona fide and having
sufficient interest in the proceedings of public interest
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/90/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025
undefined
litigation, will alone have a locus standi and can approach the
Court to raise any issue of violation of the fundamental rights and
genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain
or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration,
the Apex Court has elaborately discussed the legal forum developed
as 'public interest litigation'. The expression 'public interest
litigation' defined in Strouds Judicial Dictionary and the Black's
Law Dictionary was noted in paragraph No. 5 and 6 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, the
community at large, has some pecuniary interest, or some
interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.
It does not mean anything so narrow as mere curiosity, or
as the interests of the particulars localities, which may be
affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by
citizens generally in affairs of local, State or national
Government."
9. It was noted that in Janata Dal vs. H.S.Chowdhary [(1992) 4
SCC 305], the Apex Court considered the scope of the public
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/90/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025
undefined
interest litigation and it was held :-
"The expression 'PIL' means a 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."
10. The Apex Court has further emphasized therein that the
requirement of locus standi of a party to a litigation, is mandatory,
because the legal capacity of the party to any litigation where in
private or public action in relation to any specific remedy sought
for has to be primarily ascertained at the threshold. A word of
caution has further been added by stating that in this newly
developed doctrine of 'Public Interest Litigation' a note of severe
warning and a red-alert is sounded in a chain of notable decisions
with all emphasis that the Courts should not allow its process to be
abused by a mere busybody or a meddlesome interloper or wayfarer
or officious intervened without any interest or concern except for
personal gain or private profit or other oblique considerations. It
was further held in paragraph No. 109 in Janata Dal (supra), as
quoted in paragraph No.10 of Ashok Kumar Pandey (supra), as
under :
"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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/90/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025
undefined
private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration.
Similarly a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL, brought
before the Court for vindicating any personal grievance,
deserves rejection at the threshold".
11. Further observations made by the Apex Court in paragraph
No. 11, 12 and 13 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 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, unrepresented
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 and facing
the gallows under untold agony, 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, detenus 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 the glare of publicity break the queue muffling
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
genuine litigants and resultantly, they lose faith in the
administration of our judicial system.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/90/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025
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 armoury of law for delivering social justice to 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 a
member of the 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 busybodies 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 "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 that provide legal representation to
previously unrepresented groups and interests. Such efforts
have been undertaken in the recognition that ordinary
marketplace 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."
12. Having said that the Apex Court has emphasized 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 veil of public interest an ugli private
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/90/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025
undefined
malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking. It
was, thus, held that the Court must not allow its process to be
abused for oblique consideration and such petitions of such
busybodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold
with exemplary cost.
13. It was further directed that 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.
14. The further observations in paragraph Nos. 15 and 16 of the
decision are also relevant to be extracted hereinbelow :-
"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 v. Prabhu [(1994) 2 SCC 481 :
1994 SCC (L&S) 676 : (1994) 27 ATC 116] and A.P. State Financial
Corpn. v. Gar Re-Rolling Mills [(1994) 2 SCC 647 : AIR 1994 SC
2151] .) No litigant has a right to unlimited draught 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 Buddhi Kota Subbarao (Dr) v. K. Parasaran [(1996) 5 SCC
530 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1038 : JT (1996) 7 SC 265] .] Today people
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/90/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025
undefined
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
a large number of so-called public interest litigations where even a
minuscule percentage can legitimately be called public interest
litigations. Though the parameters of public interest litigation have
been indicated by this Court in a 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 Duryodhan Sahu (Dr) v. Jitendra Kumar
Mishra [(1998) 7 SCC 273 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1802 : 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 courts 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 aforestated so that the message goes in the right
direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the
approval of the courts."
15. In the context of the locus standi in the field of Public
Interest Litigation, the Apex Court has clearly stated that relaxation
of the Rule of locus standi in the field of Public Interest Litigation
does not give any right to busybody or meddlesome interloper to
approach the Court under the guise of a public interest litigation.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/90/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025
undefined
The Court must be careful to see that the member of the public
who approaches the Courts is acting bona fide and not for personal
gain or private profit or other oblique considerations. The court
must not allow its process to be abused by anyone for such
objectives. The decision in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai vs. Roshan
Kumar [(1976) 1 SCC 671] was noted in the context of locus standi
to apply for writ of certiorari, wherein it was held that the
petitions of the busybodies should be rejected at the threshold. Para
22 of the decision of the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Pandey
(supra) is extracted hereinunder :-
"22. Sarkaria, J. in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan
Kumar [(1976) 1 SCC 671] expressed his view that the application
of a 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 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."
16. The caution reiterated by the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar
Pandey (supra) in entertaining the public interest litigation, as noted
in paragraph No.27, is a reminder of the stated law as to how the
Court should act in a matter of entertaining the Public Interest
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/90/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025
undefined
Litigation filed by the busybodies or by the petitioner with a real
intention of personal gain or for oblique motive:-
"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".".
17. We may also take note of the decision of the Apex Court in
Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
[(2005) 1 SCC 590] wherein the writ petitioner was a lawyer, who
filed the public interest litigation raising allegations of unquthorised
constructions, whereas the petitioner had himself resorted to
blackmailing the respondents and was caught red handed accepting
blackmailing money. The Apex Court has noted the aspects
highlighted in Ashok Kumar Pandey (supra) therein.
18. Considering the facts of the present case, wherein the
petitioner who claims to be a businessman in the original petition
and has projected himself a public spirited person, has been caught
red-handed for blackmailing another business man in the Surat city
in order to extort money. The petitioner was caught red-handed in
a sting operation while taking extortion money of Rs.45 Lakhs from
the complainant businessman. When such is the conduct of the
petitioner, the fact that the sting operation was conducted pursuant
to the complaint of another businessman or the allegations against
the petitioner as alleged in the First Information Report are yet to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/90/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025
undefined
be proved, will not be a reason to permit the petitioner to maintain
the present petition. The first and foremost question which the
petitioner has to establish and the Court has to ascertain in a public
interest litigation is "credentials of the petitioner".
19. From the facts brought on record by the respondent Nos. 10
and 11, against whom the complaint is made in the petition, it is
evident that the petitioner is blackmailing and is trying to extort
money from the businessmen of the Surat city by creating fear in
their mind that if they do not shell money, he would make a
complaint of violation of one or the other laws. The present public
interest litigation seems to have been filed with ulterior motive for
personal gain by making allegations of illegal constructions against
the respondent society. The fact that the petitioner's credentials
are found to be highly doubtful, the submissions of the learned
counsel for the petitioner on the question of locus standi of the
present petitioner to maintain the petition for making an inquiry
into the nature of constructions raised by the respondent society are
liable to be rejected.
20. The fact that the petitioner has been caught in one case of
blackmailing in a sting operation, is sufficient to show him the exit
doors of the Court, inasmuch as such an unscrupulous person
cannot be permitted to misuse the process of this Court.
21. In view of the above discussion, the present petition filed in
the nature of public interest litigation is liable to be dismissed
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/90/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025
undefined
outrightly with the exemplary cost of Rs. 20,00,000/- (20 Lakhs),
which shall be deposited by the petitioner within a period of two
months from today. We order accordingly. The amount so deposited
shall be transmitted to the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority
and shall be spent in the welfare project for orphan children.
22. We further provide as an abundant caution, that any other
writ petition, if filed in the name of the petitioner, namely Ajay
Rameshbhai Trivedi, in the nature of public interest litigation
pertaining to the District Surat, in future, shall be placed before the
Registrar (Judicial) for scrutiny and no such petition shall be
entertained by the registry at the instance of the said person. The
Registrar (Judicial) is also directed to make a further inquiry as to
whether any other writ petition in the nature of Public Interest
Litigation filed by the present petitioner is pending and if so, the
same shall be listed before this Court at the earliest.
23. With the above directions, the writ petition is dismissed with
the cost stated above. The Civil Application stands allowed.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
C.M. JOSHI
