Petitions Filed Without Direct Interest Are Abuse Of Process Of Law: Delhi HC

While deprecating the practice of filing frivolous petitions, the Delhi High Court has held that such petitions without any direct legal interest amount to abuse and misuse of the judicial process.

A bench led by Justice Mini Pushkarna dismissed the petition filed by Anil (petitioner), who had sought directions to stop illegal and unauthorized construction by the respondents at Mehrauli, New Delhi.

Noting that the petitioner had no connection with the said property, the Court went on to impose a cost of Rs 50,000, while adding that he lived nearly 10 km away and was only using the adjoining street where the construction was being carried out.

The petitioner had contended that unauthorised construction was being carried out on the 6th floor of the building, along with the construction of a jetty (chajja) extending 4 feet beyond permissible limits.

On the other hand, it was the MCD's case that the petitioner resides 10 km away from the disputed property. It was contended that the petitioner had no direct interest or legal right affected by the alleged construction. MCD had further submitted that the petitioner only used the same street.

Weighing the contentions, the court held that no fundamental or legal right of the petitioner had been violated by the current construction. It also added that the petitioner had no connection with the property, therefore, the present petition was simply "an abuse and misuse of the process of law."

“A party that does not approach the Court with clean hands and files a petition with ulterior motives should not be permitted to invoke the extraordinary Writ jurisdiction of this Court,” the court stated.

Reliance was placed on the Delhi High Court's judgment in Satish Kumar Tomar Versus North Delhi Municipal Corporation and Others, wherein the court held: “An illegal construction always, no doubt, gives locus standi to the local municipal authorities to seek removal of the illegal construction, but a right of a neighbor only arises if the legal rights of light and air or any other legal right are affected by virtue of the illegal construction of the neighbour.”

While parting with the matter, the court ruled: "The present petition has clearly been filed for ulterior motives and not for the enforcement of any fundamental right of the petitioner. Such a petition cannot be entertained by this Court.”

The matter will come up before the Court on July 17.

Case Title: Anil vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.