"Unscrupulous Litigant": Gujarat High Court Dismisses PIL Kept Pending Without Removing Defects For 4 Yrs, Imposes 50K Cost

While dismissing a public interest litigation petition (PIL) pertaining to “illegal mining”, the Gujarat High Court on Wednesday imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the petitioner for failing to pursue the matter seriously, after noting that the petition was kept pending in the court's registry without removal of defects for nearly four years.

A division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi while dictating its order said, “The record of the present PIL which has been filed to agitate the issue pertaining to illegal mining activities in village tavdi district navsari, presents a sorry state of affairs in the manner in which the petition was presented before this court and kept pending in the registry itself”.

Petition filed in 2021, but kept pending without removing defects

The high court in its order noted that the writ petition was presented on December 9, 2021, and was kept pending in the registry as there were office objections which were not removed till August 17, 2022, when it was earlier dismissed for non-prosecution, i.e. for non-removal of office objection.

The court further said that after a period of approximately one year i.e. July 7, 2023, the application for seeking recall of order of August 17, 2022 had been filed “explaining delay in a cryptic manner”.

The court noted that this application was allowed by the court through its order of September 12, 2023 giving the petitioner one more opportunity for removing office objections, failing which the recall order would automatically stand vacated.

The high court thereafter in its order said, “It seems that there was some confusion in the order of recall September 12, 2023 as it was first passed jointly on two applications namely delay condonation application as well as recall application. The office took objections in permitting the petitioner to remove office objections in light of the order dated September 12, 2023 stating that the order has not been passed on the application for recall and only delay condonation application has been allowed”.

The High Court noted that subsequently, a note for 'speaking to minutes' was filed after almost another year–on July 30, 2024, which the high court disposed of on August 2, 2024 clarifying that the September 2023 order pertained to both condonation of delay application and the restoration/recall application and writ petition was restored to its original number. After the objections were removed the writ petition was registered on August 14, 2024.

During the hearing on Wednesday, the high court made certain queries to advocate Rutvij Bhatt, the counsel appearing for the petitioner.

The court noted Bhatt's submission that initially another advocate had been engaged by the petitioner, whereas Bhatt had appeared in the matter only at the stage of restoration application which was filed on July 7, 2023. Bhatt submitted that once recall has been allowed by the court in its September 2023 order, the petition may be heard on its merits.

Frivolous PIL moved by 'unscrupulous litigant'

The high court in its order said, “Taking note of the manner in which petitioner has pursued the matter it is evident that petitioner had never been serious about the issue raised in the writ petition which is essentially of public interest. All Information appended in the writ petition pertains to 2020. There is no averment in writ petition about the current status. After four years it is not possible for this court to make any inquiry on the averments made in the writ petition without the current status having been brought on record".

It added that the fact that the writ petition was presented in December 2021 and had been registered after four years was sufficient to form an opinion that the petitioner is an unscrupulous litigant and the writ petition was frivolous.

It then proceeded to dismiss the PIL imposing a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the petitioner directing that the amount shall be deposited within four weeks, failing which the amount shall be realised as arrears of land revenue.

Everyone coming to court has to follow the procedure

Bhatt submitted that the litigants were very serious about the issue and were in fact all young people, who had pursued the matter in the public interest and had no personal interest.

At this stage, the high court emphasised the importance of following the procedure and orally said, “We don't approve of this kind of practice. We are a court of law. Please try to understand we are not a social organisation…They want to agitate their issues they can agitate. But no such person can be permitted to avail the remedy of law if he is not serious about it. This is a court of law. There is a set procedure. And everyone who is coming to court has to follow that. Even we as judges have to follow the procedure. We are all bound by the procedure. So there is no scope of any kind of leverage in this. Our machinery of the court has been used for this frivolous petition”.

Case Title: Sagar Girishbhai Patel v/s State of Gujarat & Ors.   

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 115