Liberal Rules For Filing PIL But ‘Busybodies’ With Oblique Interest Can’t Be Allowed To Waste Precious Judicial Time: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has said that while there are liberal rules regarding the locus to file a public interest litigation but it must be ensured that “busybodies, wayfarers or officious interveners” with oblique interests are not allowed to waste precious judicial time.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad made the observation while dismissing a PIL alleging misuse of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, to mortgage public land allotted to charitable societies under the Government Grants Act, 1895.

“While this Court is cognizant of the liberal rules pertaining to locus vis-à-vis public interest litigation, it must also ensure that busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having oblique interests are not allowed to waste precious judicial time of this court,” the bench said.

The bench dismissed the plea moved by NGO Justice for All, seeking to declare that the SARFESI Act is not applicable for land allotted to charitable institutions under Government Grant Act.

The NGO had referred to a newspaper report published in the Times of India on April 17 titled “Bank takes over school property for loan default” stating that Punjab National Bank had taken over property of Laxmi Public School on account of default on repayment of a loan.

It was the case of the petitioner NGO that the use of provisions of SARFAESI Act against schools has “become a device used by private institutions to convert the social infrastructure created for education for commercial purposes.”

Calling the PIL frivolous and motivated through extraneous and oblique interests, the bench said:

“In the present case, the concerned society and school have already approached this Court to ensure that the school is not shut off for the students to ensure that the fundamental right of children is not affected. Further, the issues pertaining to the non-applicability of the SARFAESI Act to land granted under the GG Act is an issue which can be addressed by the concerned society. Considering the society has appropriate legal remedies available to it and has exercised its right to avail such remedies, it would not be appropriate for this court to entertain a public interest litigation, preferred by a third party.”

The bench also said that the NGO, by relying on the Times of India article, attempted to paint a picture wherein Banks were abusing SARFAESI Act and that DDA officials were allotting Nazul land contrary to the provisions of the DDA Nazul Rules.

“The Petitioner has attempted to show that this is a systemic issue and not a single instance but has failed to establish the same through the documents presented before us,” the court said.

Title: JUSTICE FOR ALL v. LAXMI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY AND ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 432

Click Here To Read Order