Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court, recently dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) with exemplary cost of Rupees 50,000/- stating that “we have no hesitation to conclude that the instant PIL petition is nothing but a sheer abuse of the process of Court and law.”

A division bench comprising the Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Arif S. Doctor, presiding over the case, said that “It is unfortunate that we are called upon to adjudicate the issues raised in this petition purportedly filed in public interest, though the petition apparently has been filed with oblique motives.”

The petitioner, Nilesh Chandrakant Kamble, filed a PIL contesting the conditions of a tender. He was identified as an Indian citizen and social worker, involved in a business similar to that specified in the tender. He claimed to be aggrieved by clause no. (1) sub-clause (vi)(e) of the tender in question.

The petitioner's counsel argued that the writ petition, filed in the public interest, aimed to address the fact that certain contractors were unable to participate in the tender process due to the contested conditions outlined in the tender.

The Court observed that “In our jurisprudence there has been a phenomenal rise of the PIL petitions being filed before the superior Courts. The Rule of locus has been relaxed permitting any member of the society or an organization to file a petition in the interest of general public, for espousing the cause especially of those who, for some or the other reason, are in a disadvantageous situation, the reason may be poverty, illiteracy or their social status.”

However, the court emphasised that allowing a contractor to file a PIL petition contesting the terms of a tender constitutes an egregious misuse of the court's processes and an attempt to undermine the integrity of public interest litigation.

The court traced the historical jurisprudence established by the Supreme Court in the case of ‘State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal’ and highlighted that “frivolous PIL petitions, which intend to plead personal or any other extraneous cause should be discouraged and such PIL petitions should be nipped in the bud.”

The court further observed that while the petitioner purported to espouse a public cause, he also admitted to being engaged in a similar business. Consequently, it became evident that the proceedings of this writ petition were initiated to pursue personal and extraneous interests rather than a public cause. “This petition cannot be permitted to be entertained as a PIL petition,” the court said.

The court directed that the petitioner, upon depositing the costs, must provide a receipt to the Prothonotary and Senior Master of the Court within the following two weeks.

Failure to deposit the cost, the relevant Collector is instructed to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue.

The court has scheduled the matter to be listed for reporting compliance on June 18, 2024.

 

Cause Title: Nilesh Chandrakant Kamble v MMRDA Govt of Maharashtra & Ors. [PIL No. 18 of 2024]