PIL opposing Slum Rehabilitation dismissed with Rs.3 Lakhs Cost, Read HC Order

 

The Bombay High Court while flagging the issue of 'increased frivolous PIL' numbers in the Courts has resonated with the Supreme Court's take on the issue that such PILs are bane on our judicial system.

The Division Bench of Justice GS Patel and Justice SG Dige has in this view, termed PIL against the Slum Rehabilitation project as 'classic case of gross abuse.' It thus directed conversion of pre-hearing deposit of ₹3 lakh to cost and be given to charity to Cancer Treatment Institute.

Re-iterating the Supreme Court order, the Court said it wants to send 'a strong message' to those who think the system can be abused with no apparent consequency.

“We do not permit this petition 'to be converted' into a public interest litigation nor do we permit it to be withdrawn with the liberty to file a public interest litigation. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly said, false, mischievous and frivolous public interest litigations are increasingly the bane of our judicial system. While we are rejecting the petition but we intend to send a strong message to those who seek to abuse and misuse our system and believe they can do so without costs,” the Court said.

The petitioner has challenged the project and mounted several allegation of irregularities, illegalities, and collusion with respect to the slum rehabilitation project.

 

Noting that the beneficiaries have not raised any issue and questioning the locus standi of the petitioner, the Court observed that it is unclear whose interests he is trying to secure.

“The petitioner has no track record of public interest litigation or of espousing public causes in the larger public interest. The petitioner has singled out one particular slum rehabilitation project, one developer, one slum society and the SRA ... We have every reason to doubt the bona fides of the petitioner. This is not a petition that raises any larger issue pertaining to slum rehabilitation projects generally or town and country planning or general principles of sound town planning,” the Court said.

The Court also took exception to the fact that the petitioner didn't disclose how he acquired all the information as mentioned and while in a later affidavit he did admit he's an RTI Activist, its not even his case that he obtained information on the allegations through disclosures under the Right to Information Act.

 The Court eventually dismissed the petition. 

Social media is bold. 

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!   

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure .