Sakina Tashrifwala
Published on: October 1, 2022 at 19:41 IST
The Bombay High Court recently assessed costs of one lakh on a petitioner for pursuing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) for extraneous, motivated motives devoid of any public interest.
A bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Madhav J Jamdar heard the appeal against the redevelopment of a land in Worli.
After learning that one of the petitioner-objectives society’s was to promote the environment, the bench ordered the petitioner to present a copy of its Memorandum of Association.
The court concluded from the memorandum that the petitioner-goal society’s was not to promote environment, and that one of the petitioners, an individual, had no link to the petitioner-society.
As a result, it found that the petitioners had not approached the Court with clean hands.
“A bare perusal of the objects of the society clearly show that to promote ecology is not the object of the society. The said statement in the PIL as set out above is not at all correct. It is further significant to note that the petition has been affirmed by the petitioner no.2 who has nothing to do with the petitioner no.1-society.”
“As set out earlier how the petitioner no.1 is concerned with the petitioner no.2 is not at all disclosed in the PIL petition. Thus, it is clear that the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands,” it said.
Sarthi Seva Sangh moved the court through counsel Ranjit Bhosale, seeking the setting aside of a redevelopment plan providing increased Floor Space Index (FSI) to a plot in Worli since the notional plot space was double the actual physical area.
As a result, it requested destruction of structures built with excess FSI.
Notably, the petitioner stated that the project was the only instance of a breach of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR) that they had come across.
Senior counsel Milind Sathe stated that the PIL was not filed in the public interest and that the motive was to target a specific project.
Furthermore, he asserted that the site in question was not subdivided but was part of a larger plot and that the redevelopment plan was in accordance with DCPR.
The Court ruled that the petitioners’ assertion that the project in Worli is the sole unlawful project they are aware of is untrue.
“In Mumbai city, there are several unauthorised and illegal constructions which is very widely known. Therefore, there cannot be any manner of doubt and it is obvious that this PIL has been filed for extraneous reasons and not in the public interest,” it added.
As a result, the Court rejected the plea with costs of one lakh to be paid to Tata Cancer Hospital, Parel.