'Filed Without Doing Any Homework': Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL With Costs Payable To DSLSA's Access To Justice Programme
The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a PIL, filed without doing any homework, with directions to the Petitioner to pay costs of Rs. 25,000/- to the Delhi Legal Service Authority (DLSA). A Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan stated that the amount will be utilized for the authority's "Access to Justice" programme. The Court was hearing...
The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a PIL, filed without doing any homework, with directions to the Petitioner to pay costs of Rs. 25,000/- to the Delhi Legal Service Authority (DLSA).
A Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan stated that the amount will be utilized for the authority's "Access to Justice" programme.
The Court was hearing a petition filed by the Residents Welfare Association, who claimed that several unauthorized properties had been constructed on public land. In their prayer, they asked the Court to issue directions to have these properties demolished.
The first observation made by the Court was that this petition could not be considered to be a public interest litigation (PIL). Secondly, it was noted that the petitioner had not included the people, alleged to be occupying the public properties, as parties to this petition.
Accordingly, the Bench stated that an order for demolition or removal cannot be given by the Courts in the absence of the parties that are occupiers of these properties.
In this backdrop the Court remarked that since the PIL has been filed without doing any homework and and without joining necessary parties, it is fit to be dismissed with costs.
"If such type of petitions are entertained by this Court, it will lead to lawlessness," observed the Court.
Moreover, the Bench expressed, "Before passing any order for demolition/ removal of the unauthorized construction/ encroachment, proper notice has to be given by the concerned authorities/Municipal Corporation and an opportunity of hearing has to be given to the concerned party." The Court pointed out that in this instance, the petitioner had failed to abide by this procedure. Instead, an "omnibus prayer" had been submitted by the petitioner on the basis of some information that they had allegedly received from anonymous aggrieved persons.
Case Title: Residents Welfare Association v. Union of India & Ors.
Read Order