The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a PIL by imposing a cost of Rs 25,000 on the petitioner while observing that the provisions of PIL have been misused by the petitioner.
The petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
“(i) That, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to vacate stay order passed in M.P.No.284 of 2020 by directing to complete construction of boundary wall on land of Wazib-Ul-Urz.
(ii) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the private respondents not to interfere in construction work.
(iii) Any other order/orders that this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed.”
The facts of the case are that a Miscellaneous Petition was filed challenging the order dated 28.06.2018 passed by the Commissioner, Rewa. The matter is still pending. The intervention application was filed by the petitioner seeking permission to intervene in the said petition on the ground that he is a social worker and is espousing the cause of poor citizens. The same was opposed by the petitioners therein on the ground that this is an effort to settle scores at the instance of the proposed intervener himself, inasmuch as, a civil suit was filed by the proposed intervener against the present petitioners.
Therefore, the petitioners submitted that the proposed intervener is not a necessary party for adjudication of the miscellaneous petition and moreover he has not approached the Court with clean hands. He has suppressed the fact of the civil dispute between him and the petitioners. On considering the contentions, the application for intervention was dismissed. Thereafter, this instant public interest litigation is filed on various grounds.
A question was asked to the counsel for the petitioner by the Division Bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra that when the application for intervention has been rejected, how a backdoor method can be used by misusing PIL provisions in filing this petition.
The High Court does not find any satisfactory answer except a plea that he is espousing the cause of the public. If that were to be so, the Court which has dismissed the application would have necessarily considered the same. The Court has considered and found him as not being a necessary party.
It is impermissible for the petitioner to route his grievances through a public interest litigation. Every such petition filed with a nomenclature of public interest is not necessarily a public interest litigation. The objection of the writ petitioners is that there is civil dispute between them and the petitioner herein. Hence, for all these grounds, the Court has no hesitation to say that the provisions of public interest litigation have been misused by the petitioner, observed the Bench.
Under these circumstances, the petition is dismissed by the Court imposing a cost of Rs 25,000 on the petitioner to be paid with the Registry .