- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Delhi High Court
- /
- Delhi High Court Junks PIL Against...
Delhi High Court Junks PIL Against 'Illegal Constructions' At Ajmeri Gate, Imposes ₹10K Costs
Nupur Thapliyal
22 Feb 2025 9:55 AM
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a PIL seeking to demolish the alleged illegal and unauthorized constructions within the regulated area of city's Ajmeri Gate. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela imposed Rs. 10,000 costs on the petitioner- Mirza Aurangzeb to be deposited with Delhi High Court Staff Welfare Fund. The Court observed...
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a PIL seeking to demolish the alleged illegal and unauthorized constructions within the regulated area of city's Ajmeri Gate.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela imposed Rs. 10,000 costs on the petitioner- Mirza Aurangzeb to be deposited with Delhi High Court Staff Welfare Fund.
The Court observed that such petitions ultimately result in impeding the course of Court's endeavor to espouse genuine public causes.
“The jurisprudence which surrounds the development of PIL petitions in India concerns itself primarily to give voice to the voiceless and to provide access to justice to those who are disadvantaged for any reason, namely, reason of illiteracy, poverty or any other handicap,” the Court said.
It added: “The Court thus cannot sit in silence if any attempt to impure the stream of PIL is made otherwise the object of development of PIL shall get defeated. The Court, therefore, is to be always at guards to promote genuine PILs, however, motivated and camouflaged petitions should be nipped in the bud.”
The Bench said that the plea was filed not in public interest but to serve certain individual purposes and that it was filed at the behest of certain individuals.
It added that the petition was filed as a camouflage not to safeguard or subserve the public interest but for seeking action against an individual in respect of certain alleged illegal constructions.
“The facts and circumstances of the case lead us to an indefeasible conclusion that the petitioner, while instituting the instant petition, has only extended his name to achieve an oblique motive, and hence, the petition has clearly been filed for extraneous considerations,” it said.
Title: MR MIRZA AURANGZEB v. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 215