- Apprentice Lawyer
- Legal Jobs
Taking a strict stand, the Bombay High Court on Thursday imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000 on a litigant for filing frivolous plea seeking unregulated entry into the Security Exchange Board of India (SEBI) headquarters at Mumbai.
In the brief order passed by the Division Bench of Chief Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice NM Jamdar, the Court remarks,
“Yet another frivolous Petition. To enter Securities & Exchange Board of India (SEBI) Head Quarters at Mumbai a gate-pass has to be obtained by the visitors that the reason is obvious. Security has to be maintained.”
With this observation, the Bench dismissed the plea by Sapan Shrivastava. The Court further directed Shrivastava to pay the fine imposed for his frivolous plea to SEBI. The securities market regulator has its office at Bandra Kurla Complex (BKC) in Mumbai. SEBI was represented by Senior Advocate Shiraz Rustomjee.
Shrivastava has filed over 25 PILs. Of late, he has been pulled by the Bench headed by Chief Justice Nandrajog over his frivolous pleas. Last month, a Bench headed by the Chief Justice directed Shrivastava to render paralegal services in the tribal areas in Thane before his petition could be considered.
To this end, Shrivastava was directed to report to the Chairperson of the District Legal Services Committee, Thane, and perform duties such as gathering information from the tribal areas on numbers of tribal schools with hostels, teachers working in the tribal schools, the number of tribal students admitted in the schools and whether tribal students are subject to medical check-ups.Chief Justice Nandrajog directed him to meet at least 100 tribal students and report whether they were satisfied with the education imparted to them.
On July 4, the Chief Justice had occasion to deal with another PIL filed by Shrivastava seeking admission for his son under the Right to Education Act. Shrivastava had claimed that he belongs to economically weaker section having income of less than Rs.1,00,000 per annum. However, the Chief Justice dismissed the PIL, stating,
“It cannot be said that the petitioner has means to pay money and obtain information under the Right to Information Act and file as many as 25 litigations and at the same time claims to be from the economically weaker section of the society.”
[Read the Order dated August 1, 2019]