Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, recently, dismissed a public interest litigation seeking the removal and demolition of illegal and unauthorized constructions within the regulated area of Ajmeri Gate. The court while assessing the grounds listed in the plea, remarked that “the proceedings of the instant petition have been instituted not in public interest and that the motive of the petition in filing the instant petition does not appear to be bona fide”. 

Therefore, the bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela imposed a cost of INR 10,000 on the petitioner, directing that the amount be deposited in the Delhi High Court Staff Welfare Fund.  

The petitioner contended that these constructions violated the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. The petitioner also urged the court to instruct the relevant authorities to identify and disclose any illegal constructions, take immediate action for their demolition, and ensure an impartial and effective mechanism for handling related complaints.  

However, after a thorough examination, the court found that the petition primarily targeted respondent no.5 (private property owners against whom the relief was sought) rather than serving any genuine public interest. Upon reviewing the background and circumstances, the court determined that the petition had been filed to serve the interests of specific individuals. It appeared that the petitioner had merely lent his name to initiate the proceedings. 

“The instant petition has been filed not in the public interest but to serve certain individual purposes and that the petition appears to have been filed at the behest of certain individuals, having some or the other dispute with respondent no.5 and the petitioner appears to have only lent his name for instituting the proceedings of the petition”, the court remarked. 

The court observed that since previous attempts to challenge the alleged illegal constructions had failed, the present petition had been filed as a disguised attempt to serve private interests. The petitioner’s claim of having no personal stake in the matter appeared to be a mere formality, submitted solely to meet procedural requirements under the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) Rules. 

After assessing the facts and circumstances, the court concluded that the petition had been filed for extraneous reasons and lacked bona fide intent. Since previous legal proceedings had already addressed the allegations, this petition failed to serve any legitimate public interest. 

“On one hand has observed that PIL petitions intending to espouse public causes and cause of general interest, should be encouraged, however, on the other hand, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also put a word of caution by observing that tendency of filing frivolous and vexatious petitions in the name of PIL petitions should be curbed at the threshold”, the court highlighted. 

Consequently, the court dismissed the petition and imposed a cost of INR 10,000 on the petitioner, directing that the amount be deposited in the Delhi High Court Staff Welfare Fund within one month. In case of non-compliance, the Registrar General was instructed to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue.  

Before concluding the matter, the court expressed concern over the increasing misuse of PILs. It noted that petitions driven by personal motives hindered the judiciary’s ability to address genuine public grievances. The court reaffirmed its duty to promote legitimate PILs while discouraging those filed with ulterior motives, ensuring that the core principles of PIL jurisprudence remained intact.

“A PIL needs to be examined before it is entertained by the Court to determine as to whether, the petitioner is guided by self gain or for gain of any other person or institution or body and also as to whether, there is any motive other than the motive of public interest in filing the petition”, the court emphasized. 

The court, therefore, dismissed the petition and imposed a cost of INR 10,000 on the petitioner. 

For Petitioner: ​​Advocates Manu Mridul, Sumit Mamgain and Pratap Singh Rawat
For Union: Standing Counsel Ripudaman Bhardwaj with Advocates Kushagra Kumar and Abhinav Bhardwaj
For ASI: Standing Counsel Tushar Sannu with Advocates Rajbala and Shivam Singh
For Respondent no 5: Senior Advocate Ajay Arorra with Advocates Nitish Dubey and Aarush Kapoor
Case Title: Mirza Aurangzeb v Archaeological Survey Of India (2025:DHC:1106-DB)