Source: Gujarat High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray have imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on a petitioner for filing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) based on false statements and misleading contentions regarding development rights. 

• The Gujarat High Court held this in the matter of Sunilbhai Ratanlal Maittal v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (2024). 

What was the Background of Sunilbhai Ratanlal Maittal v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (2024) Case? 

• The petitioner Sunilbhai Ratanlal Maittal, claiming to be the Chief Editor of Navsari Times Weekly and a journalist for 14 years, filed a PIL challenging the land use permission granted to M/S Mahendra Brothers Export Pvt. Ltd. 
• The challenge was against the development permission granted for commercial use that was converted into non-agricultural use in 1992-93. 
• The petitioner contended that the land in question was purchased by a third party through a registered sale deed in January 1994, who then applied for commercial use in August 2000. 
• The District Development Officer, Navsari granted permission in June 2001 for setting up a Diamond Factory under Section 65(1) and 67 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. 
• The land was later transferred to the respondent company following an amalgamation order passed by the Bombay High Court in October 2010. 
• The petitioner's grievance was against the development permission granted to the company even after its application was initially rejected in June 2022, alleging that construction continued illegally. 
• The petitioner made complaints to the Navsari Urban Development Authority in October 2022 and to the Chief Secretary, Gujarat in February 2023, but the Authority granted fresh development permission in April 2023. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court observed that "it is clear that the land use of both plot nos.15 and 16 is industrial. The whole basis of filing of the writ-petition...is absolutely false." 
• The Court found that the present writ-petition has been filed with false statement made by a person who claims to be a journalist of 14 years and is doing social service. 
• The Court emphasized that "A person, who is in such a position has to act responsibly", referring to the petitioner's claimed status as a journalist. 
• The Court observed that "The purpose of filing of the present writ-petition...is nothing but seem to be for personal grudges or with ulterior motive." 
• The Court noted that the PIL was filed with "incomplete and incorrect facts with a view to mislead the Court" regarding the actual land use classification. 
• The Court pointed out that there was "no description of the Company Petition of 2010 or the order passed therein" and no document on record to explain which portion of the land was subject to the Bombay High Court's decision. 
• The Court observed that apart from "vague assertion" made in the petition, there was insufficient documentation to support the claims made. 

What is Public Interest Litigation (PIL)? 

About: 

• Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a legal mechanism that allows any citizen to approach the courts for redressal of public grievances and protection of public interest. 
• PIL enables the judiciary to protect and enforce fundamental rights of those who are unable to approach the courts directly due to poverty, ignorance, or social disabilities. 
• The concept was introduced by Justice P.N. Bhagwati in the 1980s to make justice accessible to the common man and to ensure that the legal system serves the cause of social justice. 
• PIL can be filed by any public-spirited citizen even if they are not directly affected by the matter, provided it relates to a genuine public cause. 

How  Jurisdiction of PIL is Misused? 

• PIL should not be filed for personal gains, private disputes, or to settle personal scores with individuals or authorities. 
• The Supreme Court has repeatedly warned against the misuse of PIL jurisdiction and has imposed costs on frivolous petitioners. 
• PIL should be based on genuine public interest and not on personal grudges, political vendetta, or for gaining publicity. 
• Courts have the power to impose costs and even initiate contempt proceedings against those who abuse the PIL jurisdiction. 
• The judiciary has emphasized that PIL is not a weapon for vendetta or a tool for harassment of public officials. 
• Responsible journalism and social activism require verification of facts before approaching courts, especially in PIL matters. 

What are the Legal Provisions Related to PIL ? 

• Article 32 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights. 
• Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights and other legal rights. 
• Order I Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code allows representative suits in certain circumstances. 
• Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 empowers magistrates to remove public nuisances. 
• Courts have inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 582 of BNSS 2023) to prevent abuse of legal process. 

Case Laws Related  

• In Balco Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India & Ors. (2001), the Supreme Court cautioned against the misuse of Public Interest Litigation, noting it was increasingly being used as "publicity" or "private" interest litigation. The Court clarified that PIL was intended to protect the rights of the poor and disadvantaged who couldn't access justice, and stressed the need to redefine its permissible limits to prevent abuse.