Gujarat High Court Imposes Cost Of ₹1 Lakh On Journalist For Filing PIL Due To Personal Grudge

The Gujarat High Court has imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on a Journalist for filing a Public Interest Litigation with personal grudges and ulterior motives based on false statements. The Petitioner in the PIL claimed to be the Chief Editor of ‘Navsari Times Weekly’.

The Court was considering the Writ Petition styled as PIL against the grant of development rights to a Company for regularizing the construction on land alleged to be residential zone.

The Bench of Justice DN Ray observed, ".....The whole basis of filing of the writ-petition that the land use of plot nos.15 and 16 owned by the respondent no.3, over which the development permission dated 12.04.2023 has been granted for regularizing the constructions is residential, is absolutely false. We, thus, find that the present writ-petition has been filed with false statement made by a person, who claim to be a Journalist of 14 years and is doing social service. A person, who is in such a position has to act responsibly. The purpose of filing of the present writ-petition, the facts noted herein-above, is nothing but seem to be for personal grudges or with ulterior motive...."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate HR Prajapati, while the Respondent was represented by Assistant Government Pleader Hetal Patel.

The Petitioner, claimed to be the Chief Editor of ‘Navsari Times Weekly’ and that he is engaged in the profession of Journalism since about last 14 years at Navsari and challenged the order of the land use permission granted to Respondent No.3 for commercial use of the land in question which was converted into non-agricultural use in the year 1992-93.

It was contended that the land in question was purchased via a registered sale-deed and on his application, permission was granted for change of the use of land-in-question for commercial use, i.e. for construction of a Diamond Factory. It was contended that out of total land admeasuring 39994.23 square meters, permission was granted to put up construction only upon the land admeasuring 6294.80 square meters subject to certain conditions in exercise of powers conferred under Sections 65(1) and 67 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. It was then contended that the construction of ‘Diamond Factory’ was made on the land in question about 18 to 20 years ago. The Navsari Nagar Palika was collecting tax from the land owner with respect to the land in question.

It was further the contention that the land in question was transferred in favor of the Respondent No.3 herein pursuant to an amalgamation proceeding passed by the High Court of Mumbai.

The Court pointed out that apart from the vague assertion made in the Writ Petition, there is no description of the Company Petition or the order passed therein nor there is any document on record to explain as to which portion of the land in question, total of, plot of 15 and 16, admeasuring 39994.23 square meters, were subject matter of the decision of the Bombay High Court.

"It is, thus, evident that the present petition has been filed with incomplete and incorrect facts with a view to mislead the Court..........The contention is that initially, the petitioner was informed by the respondent no.2 that construction in question had been stopped and the details sought by the petitioner will be provided in person. The petitioner again made a complaint dated 22.02.2023 to the Chief Secretary, State of Gujarat.......However, a fresh Development Permission dated 12.04.2023 dehors the provisions of CGDCR- 2017 has been granted to the respondent no.3 by respondent no.2. A perusal of the statement made in paragraph-4.17 of the writ-petition shows that the permission was granted subject to removal of certain offending constructions," it observed.

The Court pointed out that when it asked the Petitioner to bring on record the zonal plan prepared by the development authority to demonstrate that the land in question falls in purely residential zone, the only submission made by the Counsel for the Petitioner was that the development permission was granted contrary to the land use of the land in question in the zonal plan.

"From a perusal of the additional affidavit dated 19.04.2024 filed by the petitioner [from page ‘97’ of the paper-book], which is Part of Plan Sanctioned Development Plan-2039 of Navsari Urban Development Authority, Navsari sanctioned under Government Notification dated 12.08.2021, it is clear that the land use of both plot nos.15 and 16 is industrial........We, therefore, dismiss the present writ-petition with the cost of Rs.1,00,000/- [Rupees One Lac] to be deposited before the Registrar General of the High Court within a period of 03 weeks from today. The cost so deposited shall be transmitted to the accounts of High Court Legal Service Committee. In case the petitioner fails to deposit the cost within the time given above, appropriate proceedings for recovery shall be initiated...", the Court observed.

The Petition was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Sunilbhai Ratanlal Mittal vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate HR Prajapati, Advocate Nishka H Prajapati

Respondent- Assistant Government Pleader Hetal Patel

Click here to read/ download Order