Gujarat HC dismisses ‘dubious’ PIL, imposes Rs 10 lakh cost on petitioner who alleged encroachment of protected mosque

The case of the petitioner was that construction was being undertaken on a land located 65 metres from a protected monument – the ‘Bawa Ali Shah’s mosque’ or ‘Rani’s masjid’, located in Kochrab village on the southern bank of the Sabarmati River in Ahmedabad.

The court judgment, made available on March 9, notes that the petitioner submitted that the monument, also called the ‘small stone masjid’ is protected under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2010, which has barred construction activity in an area up to 100 metres from the protected monuments. The judgment notes that the petitioner also submitted that as per the Act the area from 100 metres up to 300 metres from the protected monument is classified as Regulated Area, within which construction is permissible only upon prior approval and issuance of No Objection Certificate (NOC) by the competent archaeological authority.

The court also noted the submissions made through the affidavit of the developer of the project, stating that the PIL petitioner was a “habitual offender having a criminal background and has systematically targeted the project launched… to harass and blackmail the (developer) … with an ulterior motive.” The affidavit also enlisted the number of cases that the petitioner was involved in and “not disclosed” while filing the PIL and drew the attention of the court to a PIL filed by the same petitioner in 2012, which was adjourned 17 times as it was not pursued, leading the High Court to pass an order in September 2013, dismissing the PIL for default.

The court considered the submissions of the developer and noted in the judgment, “(In a rejoinder)… the PIL petitioner has admitted to virtually every allegation levelled against the petitioner by the respondent No. 6 and has even prayed for an unconditional apology for not disclosing details of filing earlier PIL in violation of Chapter II of the High Court of Gujarat (Practice and Procedure for Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010…”

The judgment adds that the PIL petitioner has not denied raising issues against another project of the same petitioner and justified that “some of the criminal cases against him have been withdrawn-settled.” The judgment states that the court is of the “firm view” that the PIL filed by the petitioner is “nothing but a device to misuse and abuse the process of the Court by unscrupulous elements… to further his own devious purpose.”

The judgment states that it was “shocking” that the court “has been made a party in the nefarious design of the PIL petitioner and it is evident that the petition has been filed in complete desecration of the PIL norms and the rules of this Court.”

Stating that it would be “in the fitness of things to dismiss the present petition with costs”, the court imposed a fine of Rs 10 lakhs on the petitioner. The judgment states, “It is, therefore, a fit case to not only dismiss the PIL on merits but also to impose exemplary costs on the dubious PIL petitioner. The failure, so to do, would itself be a travesty of justice… to dismiss the present petition with costs of Rs 10 lakhs, which shall be deposited by the petitioner within a period of two months from today.”

The judgment states that the amount to be deposited by the petitioner shall be transmitted to the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority and shall be “spent in the welfare project for orphan children”. The judgment also states that the “failure to do so will entail recovery of the same from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue”.