The Gujarat High Court imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the petitioner while dismissing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed to agitate against illegal mining activities in Village Tavdi, District Navsari.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi noted that the record of the PIL presents a sorry state of affairs, the manner in which the petition was presented before the Court and kept pending in the Registry itself. The petition was presented on 09.12.2021 and was kept pending in the Registry as there were office objections, which were not removed till 17.08.2022 when it was dismissed for non-prosecution, i.e. for non-removal of office objections.
After a period of approximately one year i.e. 07.07.2023, the application seeking recall of the Order dated 17.08.2022 had been filed explaining the delay in a cryptic manner. The said application, however, has been allowed by this Court vide Order dated 12.09.2023 giving the petitioner one week time for removal of office objections, failing which, the order of recall would stand automatically vacated.
The Court noted that there was some confusion in the Order of recall dated 12.09.2023 as it was passed jointly on two applications namely the Delay Condonation Application as well as Recall Application. The Office took objection in permitting the petitioner to remove the office objection in light of the Order dated 12.09.2023 stating that the order has not been passed on the application for recall and only delay condonation application has been allowed.
Be that as it may, a Note for Speaking to Minutes has been filed after almost another one year i.e. on 30.07.2024, when the Court had disposed of the same with the Order dated 02.08.2024 clarifying that the Order dated 12.09.2023 pertained to both the Delay Condonation Application as well as Recall / Restoration Application and the petition has been restored to its original number. After removal of the office objections, the petition has, thus, been registered on 14.08.2024.
On the presentation of the petition, when the Court have made certain queries from the Counsel for the petitioner, Rutvij Bhatt, advocate for the petitioner, it was sought to be submitted that initially another advocate had been engaged by the petitioners and Bhatt had put an appearance only at the stage of the Restoration Application, filed on 07.07.2023.
The submission of Mr. Bhatt is that once the Recall Application has been allowed by the Court vide Order dated 12.09.2023, the petition may be heard on merits.
Taking note of the manner in which the petitioner has pursued the matter, the Bench held that the petitioner has never been serious about the issue raised in the petition, which are essentially of public interest. All information appended with the petition pertains to the year 2020. There is no averment in the petition about the current status. After four years, it is not possible for the Court to make an inquiry in the averments made in the petition without the current status having been brought on record.
Even otherwise, the fact that the petition was presented in the month of December 2021 and has been registered after four years is sufficient to form an opinion that the petitioner is an unscrupulous litigant and the petition is frivolous, the Court observed.
“We, therefore, dismiss the writ petition with the cost of Rs 50,000/-, which shall be deposited by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today, failing which, the cost amount shall be realized as arrears of land revenue,” the Court ordered.