The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a PIL filed seeking action against Larsen & Toubro over the construction of the new parking lot and lawyer chambers block in the HC premises.
The Division Bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar passed this order while hearing a PIL filed by Santosh Kumar Pandey.
The petition has been preferred by the petitioner, who is a practising Advocate, as Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the following reliefs:-
“(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the appropriate authority to submit City Surveillance System Footage installed on roadside.
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to initiate enquiry and seize property of L&T construction company.
(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to blacklist the L&T company as the contractor in the case.
(iv) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to revoke the contract and agreement of L&T construction company.”
With the petition, the petitioner wants to stop the construction of a new building for lawyer chambers and parking, which is coming up in the High Court premises.
Aditya Singh, counsel for the petitioner submitted that excavation of soil is being carried out by L&T, which is the construction company for the said project, without taking permission from the Mining Department, and they never had the Environment Clearance Certificate.
He further submitted that without complying with the mandatory provisions, the project cannot be initiated.
He has further placed reliance on a judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the matter of Tapas Guha and others vs Union of India and others in Civil Appeal.
He also submitted that the project is being developed without looking into sustainable developments.
Per contra, Manish Goyal, Additional Advocate General assisted by A.K Goyal, Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the PIL is not maintainable as the same has been preferred by a lawyer, and is contrary to the directions given by the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Uttaranchal Vs Balwant Singh Chaufal and others, (2010) 3 SCC 402.
Additional Advocate General further submitted that the PIL has been filed without following the guidelines laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balwant Singh Chaufal’s case (supra).
Placing reliance on aforesaid rules, the Additional Advocate General submitted that the petitioner has not followed the procedure laid down by the Court while filing the PIL. Further, in reply to the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that there was no prior Environment Clearance before starting the project, he submitted that application for environment clearance was submitted on 27.08.2021 and thereafter, on the basis of Detail Project Report (DPR) submitted by the consultant, vide Government Order dated 28.07.2021, the project was approved/sanctioned.
He further submitted that for digging soil, an online application was made on 25.10.2021 on which deemed approval has been granted. As such, he submitted that there is prior approval of the project from the Mining Department as well as the project had also the Environment Clearance Certificate.
He also submitted that all the relevant clearances have been taken prior to initiation of the project and the same has been explained in detail in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, hence, all the averments made in the PIL are baseless and lack merit.
The Court noted that,
The Additional Advocate General pointed out the startling fact that earlier also Aditya Singh, Advocate has preferred an identical petition, being PIL with the identical prayer as has been sought in this petition. The petition was dismissed by order dated 14.10.2022 by the Bench headed by the then Chief Justice on the ground of credentials. After dismissal of the earlier petition, Aditya Singh has found someone to lend his name for filing the petition and Aditya Singh is appearing as a lawyer in the petition.
In this petition, he has not disclosed about the earlier PIL, and as such he has not come to the Court with clean hands and has knowingly concealed the facts.
“The PIL has been filed in December 2022 i.e just two months after dismissal of the earlier PIL on 14.10.2022 wherein the averments in the petition are the same, the relief is the same. The earlier petition was filed by Aditya Singh, who is the counsel in the petition. It is apparent that concealing the aforesaid fact, Aditya Singh, Advocate has chosen to file another petition with the same relief in the name of one, Santosh Kumar Pandey, Advocate and Sri Singh is now appearing as a counsel on behalf of the petitioner. It is pure concealment of fact and pure abuse of the process of law. It was expected from Aditya Singh, counsel for the petitioner to have pointed out that he had earlier filed a PIL which was already dismissed by order dated 14.10.2022 but he chose not to disclose the same before this Court.
The conduct of the petitioner is not above board and he has not come to the Court with clean hands. Apparently, the entire petition has been filed on the behest of somebody, just to stall the construction of Chamber-cum-parking for the lawyers.
Considering the factual situation and also in view of the fact that the petition has been filed with material concealment of facts, moreover the averments raised in the petition is baseless as the counter affidavit filed by the State shows that all clearances were there before the project started, we are not inclined to entertain the petition,” the Court observed while dismissing the petition.