Bombay High Court imposes ₹1 lakh costs on society for motivated PIL

The Bombay High Court recently imposed costs of ₹1 lakh on a petitioner for filing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) for extraneous, motivated reasons devoid of any public interest [Sarthi Seva Sangh and Anr. vs Mumbai Municipa Corporation and Ors.]..The plea challenging redevelopment of a plot at Worli was heard by a bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Madhav J Jamdar.After being told by the petitioner-society that one of their objects was promoting the ecology, the bench directed the petitioner to produce a copy of its Memorandum of Association.From the memorandum, the court found that promoting ecology was not the society's object and that one of the petitioners, an individual, had no connection to the petitioner-society. It, therefore, determined 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..The society, Sarthi Seva Sangh, approached the court through advocate Ranjit Bhosale seeking setting aside of a redevelopment plan granting additional Floor Space Index (FSI) to a plot in Worli considering that the notional plot area was double of actual physical area. Thus, it sought demolition of constructions made by consuming additional FSI.Notably, the petitioner claimed that the project was the only instance of Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR) violation they came across..Senior advocate Milind Sathe contended that the PIL was not filed in public interest and that the reason was to target the particular project. Moreover, he claimed that the plot in question was not a sub-divided plot but was part of a larger plot and said that the redevelopment plan was in conformity with DCPR..The Court said that the petitioners' claim that the project in Worli is the only unauthorized project they know of, was false."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..Thus, the Court dismissed the petition with costs of ₹1 lakh to be paid to Tata Cancer Hospital, Parel..[Read Judgment]