The Gujarat High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed alleging illegal construction in Chandkheda Society of the Gujarat Housing Board.
The assertion in the Petition is that the petitioner has given representations to the Collector, Ahmedabad, the Commissioner, Gujarat Housing Board and other responsible authorities to stop illegal construction in Chandkheda Society of the Gujarat Housing Board. The contention is that no effort has been made to stop illegal construction raised in the society.
On a query raised by the Court, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a resident of Chandkheda society at Khodiyarnagar. Various assertions have been made in the Petition of inaction on the part of the competent authority in removal of the illegal construction put up by some private persons.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee noted that the concerned residential society, which must be registered under the Society Registration Act managing the residential society put up by the Gujarat Housing Board, is not impleaded in the Petition. There is no clarity of the nature of illegal construction. There is no assertion with regard to those persons who, as per the contentions made in the Petition, have raised illegal construction narrowing down the open area of the residential society. On such vague assertions, without any clarity about the nature of illegal construction and without impleading the registered residential Association which is managing the residential society, thePetition cannot be entertained, that too, in the nature of Public Interest Litigation.
At this stage, the Court noted that the petitioner had filed a petition with the reliefs as prayed for in the Petition, seeking for removal/demolition of illegal construction in the Gujarat Housing Board, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad. The said writ petition has been dismissed noticing that the reliefs prayed therein were very wide and there was no specific instance of illegal construction, which the petitioner want to get removed. While dismissing the Writ Petition, it was noted by the learned Single Judge that unless the petitioner specifies particular illegal encroachment, the Court would not be in a position to issue any direction either to the Gujarat Housing Board or to Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. It is noted that it was necessary for the petitioner to specify a particular encroachment from which the petitioner was aggrieved. However, while dismissing the writ petition, this Court has simply noted that it is open for the petitioner to file the Public Interest Litigation with the same prayer.
“The present Public Interest Litigation is sought to be maintained on the premise of the liberty granted by the learned Single Judge in the Judgment and order dated 01.03.2023. However, no improvement has been shown by the petitioner from the observations in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and similar wide prayers have been made without giving any specific instance in the present Petition filed in the nature of Public Interest Litigation. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed”, the order reads.