'Wholly Misconceived': Gujarat HC Junks 'Second' PIL Seeking Burial Grounds For All Religious Communities, Imposes ₹10K Costs

The Gujarat High Court today dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking to provide fitting places for burial to different religious communities in the state as it noted that earlier, for the same relief, a PIL had been moved by the petitioner and the same was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court also imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the petitioner.

"This is a wholly misconceived second PIL filed by the petitioner for the same relief for which, earlier a PIL had been filed, and the same was dismissed as withdrawn and no liberty was granted to the petitioner to file another PIL," a bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee observed as it dismissed the PIL plea.

The Court came down heavily on the petitioner for acquiring new information by way of filing an RTI and thereafter, filing the PIL plea before the Court. The Court also observed that the counsel for the petitioner could not answer the bench's query as to how a second PIL plea was maintainable when an earlier PIL plea was dismissed as withdrawn.

"No plausible explanation could be given by the petitioner to answer the question raised by the Court as to how a second PIL for the same cause of action when the petitioner himself had withdrawn the previous one without any liberty. It is evident from the draft amendment that the petitioner is a busybody and he is trying to raise the same issue under the cover of new information received by him by getting information under the RTI Act. The act of the petitioner in filing the instant petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court," the bench further stated in its order.

Importantly, during the course of the hearing, the Court raised a query with the counsel of the petitioner as to which community he belonged to.

In response to this, the Counsel responded by saying that the petitioner is from the Muslim community, to which, the Court orally remarked that he could very well raise the issue of his community, but if he would raise the cause of other communities, the Court wouldn't hear him.

Before the Court, when the counsel prayed that cost may not be imposed on him, the Court said that the order was being passed so that the petitioner wouldn't come again to the court with the same relief. 

Case Citation: MUJAHID NAFEES vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Case Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Guj) 154