Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

A Division Bench of Bombay High Court comprising of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Madhav J. Jamdar dismissed a Public Interest Litigation for being filed with extraneous and motivated purposes and, further imposed a penalty of Rs 1 lakh on the petitioner.

The Bench also directed the State of Maharashtra and District Collector to reconstruct a crematorium that belonged to the fishermen's community and recover the cost of construction from the petitioner.

The case pertains to an order passed by the High Court wherein without providing a detailed site inspection an order was obtained by the High Court for ad interim relief. The High Court had ordered a stay on the construction of the crematorium and had directed the collector to take necessary steps according to the provisions of the law. The collector then acted at an alarming speed and demolished the crematorium without providing an opportunity to the affected party and without issuing any show-cause notice.

It was alleged by the petitioner that the construction of a cement concrete shed is being carried out right on the beach by leveling the sandy beach with cement and hard material. Further, the activity in the nature of construction of the cemetery is totally prohibited under the provisions of CRZ Notification, 2011.

However, the court noted that a deliberate attempt was made to mislead the Court, and it was purposely not disclosed that the construction was in existence at least since 2008-2009 and the same was done by the Government of Maharashtra through MHADA by using local MLA’s fund. Further, the court noted that by misleading the court, the earlier order was obtained from for demolition of the crematorium.

The court also noted that the said crematorium used by the fishermen community, was in operation even before the issuance of CRZ Notification dated 19th February 1991. On perusal of the records of the Department of Health of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, it was found that the crematorium was in existence for 100 years. And was damaged due to a cyclone in 2008-2009 after which the same was repaired when the local MLA had demanded funds, accordingly plaque was put on the said old construction. .

The Division Bench noted that, “It is a settled legal position that no one shall suffer by an act of the Court”.

The court while dismissing the PIL and imposing a cost on the petitioner stated that:

“The Supreme Court after noticing that a large number of people who are poor, ignorant or in a socially or economically disadvantaged position were not in a position to approach the Courts to redress their grievances regarding violation of fundamental or legal rights evolved what is popularly known as Public Interest Litigation.”

Case Title: Chetan Kodarlal Vyas vs UOI & Ors.