Delhi HC slaps ₹50k costs on 'serial litigant' who filed multiple pleas against illegal constructions

The Delhi High Court recently imposed costs of ₹50,000 on a litigant for filing a series of petitions with respect to illegal construction and not pursuing them later on some pretext or the other [Shri Hardeep Singh Hanspal Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors].

The Court questioned the petitioner's intent after noting that it was the fifth plea filed by the same petitioner, alleging illegal construction in various properties that he was not directly concerned with.

Justice Mini Pushkarna observed that the petitioner is a “serial litigant” and has been filing multiple such petitions, but does not pursue the matter further later.

“It is clear that the petitioner is a serial litigant and has been filing various writ petitions against a number of properties situated in the area in question. The writ petitions, as filed by the petitioner, are not pressed by the petitioner after filing, on the ground that the owners/occupiers of the said properties themselves have started taking action for removal of the unauthorized construction. The present writ petition, as per the submissions made before this Court, is the fifth in line,” the Court noted.

 The Court then expressed doubts regarding the genuineness of the petition.

“The petitioner is not directly affected by the unauthorized construction in the properties, qua which the various petitions have been filed by the petitioner. Apparently, the motive of the petitioner does not seem to be bonafide and the petitions seem to have been filed with oblique motives,” the Court stated. 

The Court observed that the petitioner’s conduct in filing the petitions and pursuing them further reflects his questionable intent. 

“The conduct of the petitioner in filing petitions and not pursuing the same, also, does not inspire confidence and is a clear pointer to the fact that the petitions have been filed by the petitioner for self-serving and disagreeable motives. The intent and purpose of filing petitions before this Court, must be bonafide and in good faith. A petition cannot be filed with any hidden agendas for pursuing any self-interest. This Court shall not entertain any petition, which is filed for extraneous or self-serving ends,” the Court stated. 

The petitioner's counsel, meanwhile, sought to withdraw the petition after these concerns were raised by the Court. The Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the petition.

However, Justice Pushkarna also imposed a punitive cost of ₹50,000 to be paid by the petitioner within four weeks to the Delhi High Court Bar Association Costs Account.

Further, the Court also directed Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to take action against the alleged unauthorized construction. The MCD counsel informed the Court that it is already looking into the issue. 

With these observations and directions, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. 

Advocate Sushant Kumar appeared for the petitioner.

Advocates Dhruv Varma and Rohit Kathuria appeared for the MCD. 

[Read judgment]