Gujarat High Court Pulls Up Officer For "Vehemence", Filing "Misguided Response" To Oppose PIL Seeking Improvement Of State Highway

While hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking improvement of a state highway in Mahisagar district, Gujarat High Court on Friday expressed its displeasure with the affidavit of the concerned official stating that the road was "not totally damaged but had developed potholes", observing that every sentence in a PIL is not to be opposed.

Taking a "strong exception" to the official's response, a division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi said that it shows the official's “vehemence” which "cannot be approved of", adding that PILs are not adversarial in nature. 

Perusing through the affidavit of the Executive Engineer, R&B department, Lunawada, the Chief Justice orally remarked, "Very nice way of putting things...You are talking about a road, it is not a dilapidated building. What do you mean by that the 'road is not damaged completely'?  How can an officer file an affidavit like this? Is this a response an officer is supposed to give in the court? If there are patches and potholes on the road…they are prone to accidents. At least please talk to your AGPs and tell them not to draft affidavits like this. Not in PIL. You are not countering the allegations of petitioner in PIL. This is not adversarial litigation. Every sentence is not to be countered in PIL. They don't know even basics of drafting of response in a PIL?". 

Stating that it shall take action against the officer, the high court further said that it is putting the officer to notice.

"How can he give this kind of response? This shows the vehemence of the officer," the court added. The plea highlighted the bad condition of the road running from Virniya Chowkdi to Dev Chowkdi known as Balasinor Road which is a state highway, located in Mahisagar district. 

Noting that there was no proper response to the specific query by the court in its earlier order on the action taken by the respondent authorities to mend the road, the high court directed the official to answer why the court should not direct initiation of action against him for filing a "misguided response" before it.

The affidavit stated that "since the road is a state highway whereupon heavy vehicles are bound to travel and in the monsoon season wear and tear is bound to happen". To this the high court said that this reflected vehemence on the officer's part, which cannot be approved of.

Case title: JASWANTSINH BALVANTSINH SOLANKI v/s  STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.