‘Classic case of gross abuse of court process’ | Rs 3 lakh deposited to hear plea be imposed as costs: HC

A division bench of Justice Patel and Justice S G Dige was hearing a plea by one Abhilash Umesh Reddy against the SRA through advocates Subhradeep Banerjee and Gyanprakash Pal.

Justice Patel observed that an earlier bench had noted that the petitioner did not have any personal interest in the matter and had asked him to deposit Rs 3 lakh to show his bona fides and the petitioner had done so.

“But that deposit will not in itself establish the petitioner’s locus standi. Today, we are even less satisfied that (despite the deposit) the petitioner has any locus to maintain such a petition at all. The petitioner has no track record of public interest litigation or of espousing public causes in the larger public interest,” the bench noted.

It added that Reddy had “singled out” a particular slum rehabilitation project, specific developer and a slum society and the SRA. “All kinds of allegations are made against these entities and even against individuals (not all of whom are joined). There are allegations of irregularities, illegalities, fraud and wrongdoing without any explanation as to how the petitioner has come upon the information that is set out in the petition.”

The court noted that the plea has made allegations of collusion, conversion of a structure into two and assertions were made about surveys done and had referred to civil proceedings in City Civil Court at Dindoshi. However, it failed to disclose as to how the petitioner obtained the information. “Importantly, the slum society, the beneficiaries of the slum rehabilitation project, has no complaints. It is unclear on whose behalf or for whose protection this petition is filed…We have every reason to doubt the bona fides of the petitioner. This is not a petition that raises any larger issue pertaining to slum rehabilitation projects generally or town and country planning or general principles of sound town planning,” it observed.

The HC also pointed out that while the petitioner claimed to be a RTI activist, there is a criminal complaint against him and if indeed he was an activist, he ought to have mentioned that information he has sourced through application under RTI Act, but same is “missing.”

The bench warned, “While we are rejecting the petition, we intend to send a strong message to those who seek to abuse and misuse our system and believe they can do so without costs.”

The court directed its registry to transfer the amount deposited by Reddy and all accrued interest to St Jude India Child Care Centre, which supports cancer-affected children and their families.