Calcutta High Court Imposes ₹50,000 Cost On Party For Filing PIL While Suppressing Criminal Cases; Finds Plea Maintainable
In a Public Interest Litigation alleging illegal construction within 500 metres of the Hooghly in Howrah, the Calcutta High Court on December 17 refused to dismiss the plea at the threshold but imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on the petitioner for suppressing material facts regarding his antecedents.A Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen directed that the amount...
In a Public Interest Litigation alleging illegal construction within 500 metres of the Hooghly in Howrah, the Calcutta High Court on December 17 refused to dismiss the plea at the threshold but imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on the petitioner for suppressing material facts regarding his antecedents.
A Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen directed that the amount be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority, West Bengal, within 15 working days, to be credited to the Victim Compensation Scheme.
The respondent-developer (Respondent No.17) had questioned maintainability, alleging business rivalry and suppression of pending criminal cases. The court noted that the petitioner, who claims to espouse public interest, failed to disclose that he was an accused in several police cases involving cognizable offences.
The Bench observed: “The writ petitioner… had suppressed some material facts in relation to his credentials as well as with regard to the pendency of criminal proceedings against him which ought not to be done.”
The court rejected the plea that the PIL was mala fide, holding that personal interest or rivalry had not been substantiated.
The court held that issues raised—whether construction violated CRZ notifications of 1996 or 2019—require factual examination and cannot be dismissed merely because the petitioner resided elsewhere.
Relying on the PIL guidelines laid down in Balwant Singh Chaufal, the Bench reiterated the obligation to verify petitioner's credentials, adding:
“It is obligatory for the Court to verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL… the writ petitioner is duty bound to disclose his credentials and antecedents.”
Finding prima facie public interest, the court ruled: “the instant writ petition is very much maintainable.” The matter has been directed to be listed for hearing in the week commencing February 9, 2026.
Background
The petitioner approached the Calcutta High Court alleging that Respondent No.17 was raising an illegal construction within 500 metres of the Hooghly river bank in Howrah, in violation of the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 1996. He asserted that the project required permissions which had not been obtained, and raised concerns over ecological impact. The petitioner also stated that related proceedings were pending before the National Green Tribunal.
In response, the developer and other respondents challenged the maintainability of the PIL, arguing that the CRZ notification of 1996 was inapplicable and that the 2019 notification governed the field. They further alleged suppression of material facts, including that the petitioner was a real estate businessman facing several pending criminal cases, and that the NGT matter had already been dismissed months earlier. The State Pollution Control Board submitted that it had granted clearance and that no challenge was made to it.
Case: Sri Sandip Pramanik Vs. The Union of India & Ors.
Case No: W.P.A. (P) 173 of 2025