'Abuse of Law': Bombay HC Dismisses PIL to Demolish SRA Building, Imposes Rs 1 Lakh Cost

The Bombay High Court has recently dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by an electronic media journalist seeking the demolition of a Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) project building in Kandivali (East), while also imposing a cost of Rs1 lakh.

A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne was hearing a PIL filed by Ankush Jaiswal, who alleged that the six-wing building, developed under an SRA project, lacked the mandatory clearance from the National Highways Authority. He also contended that the building did not have the required No-Objection Certificate (NOC) from the fire department.

Noting that the construction was completed over two decades ago, the high court said that raising objections now about missing NOCs after 22 years was “an abuse of process.”

The High Court also noted that the same petitioner had previously filed a similar writ petition in 2019, which had been dismissed.

"We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. He fairly submitted that he had earlier filed a writ petition in 2019 seeking similar reliefs, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 22nd September 2022," the court noted.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Satish B. Talekar contended that the earlier decision was not on merits and that the second petition is maintainable.

Hearing the contentions raised by the petitioner, the high court proceeded to reject it and held: "It is well-settled law that the principles of res judicata apply to PILs as well, so long as the litigants act bona fide. Admittedly, the petitioner had earlier filed similar litigation seeking the same reliefs, which was dismissed. The present PIL is, therefore, barred by the principle of res judicata and lacks any element of public interest."

The court also noted that the petitioner's father was a slum dweller and had been allotted a plot under the rehabilitation scheme. He subsequently purchased a flat in the building in question, where the petitioner currently resides with him.

The court, therefore, went on to question the petitioner as to why he was residing in the area which was allegedly “dangerous to life.”

Observing that the present PIL had not been filed in public interest, the court dismissed it with costs of Rs 1 lakh, payable to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority.