'Desecration Of PIL Rules': Gujarat High Court Slaps ₹10 Lakh Costs On Litigant Claiming Encroachment Of Protected Mosque

The Gujarat High Court dismissed a PIL seeking removal of alleged illegal construction claimed to be made within the protected area of Bawa Ali Shah's Mosque–a protected monument in Ahmedabad, after noting that the litigant had not disclosed details of a previous PIL dismissed for default as well as his criminal antecedents. In doing so the court imposed cost of Rs. 10 Lakh on the litigant remarking that the present PIL was a "device to misuse and abuse" the court process wherein the petition was filed in complete desecration of the PIL norms and the rules of the court. The petitioner alleged that the disputed structure is only 65 meters away from the ancient monument whereas all constructions within 100 meter radius of the said protected monument is completely prohibited and that Archaeological Department could have given the NOC if the construction was between 100-300 metre from the protected monument. The petitioner said that respondent no. 6–M/s H.R. Space Con LLP (builder) was constructing within the prohibited area and sought that the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation be directed to suspend or revoke the construction permission.A division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice DN Ray in order said:"Upon perusal of the rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondent No. 6, it will be seen that the PIL petitioner has admitted to virtually every allegation levelled against the petitioner by the respondent No. 6 and has even prayed for an unconditional apology for not disclosing details of filing earlier PIL in violation of Chapter II of the High Court of Gujarat (Practice and Procedure for Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010. Further, nowhere in the said rejoinder, has the PIL petitioner denied raising issues against the other project of the respondent No.6, namely Exeter-2. The PIL petitioner has merely tried to justify that some of the criminal cases have been withdrawn-settled.In view of the above undisputed position, this Court is of the firm view that the present petition is nothing but a device to misuse and abuse the process of the Court by unscrupulous elements like the PIL petitioner herein to further his own devious purpose. It is shocking that this Court has been made a party in the nefarious design of the PIL petitioner and it is evident that the petition has been filed in complete desecration of the PIL norms and the rules of this Court. It is, therefore, a fit case to not only dismiss the PIL on merits but also to impose exemplary costs on the dubious PIL petitioner. The failure, so to do, would itself be a travesty of justice and therefore, it will be in the fitness of things to dismiss the present petition with costs of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only), which shall be deposited by the petitioner within a period of two months from today".The court directed that the cost amount be deposited will be transmitted to Gujarat State Legal Services Authority to be spent on welfare project for orphan children. The PIL stated that the “Small Stone Mosque”, also known as “Rani's Masjid” or “Bawa Ali Shah's Mosque”, is a monument declared to be of national importance under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. It was submitted that the mosque, situated on the southern bank of the Sabarmati River near village Kochrab, is also referred to as Masjid-e-Nagina and under Town Planning Scheme No. 3, Paldi, Ahmedabad and Final Plot No. 939 has been allotted to the protected monument.It was submitted that pursuant to amendments made in Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Amendment and Validation) Act, every area extending up to 100 meters from the protected limit of a monument is designated as a “Prohibited Area,” wherein construction activities are strictly barred. The area extending from 100 meters up to 300 meters is classified as a “Regulated Area,” within which construction is permissible only upon prior approval and issuance of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) by the competent archaeological authority. Such NOC is stipulated to be non-transferable.Meanwhile the builder argued that the petitioner is a habitual offender having a criminal background, and systematically targeted the project launched by the respondent No. 6 namely Exeter-1 as well as Exeter-2. The builder alleged that petitioner made false averments as well as declaration on oath that he had not filed any other PIL; on the contrary, petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition (PIL) No.194/2012 which was adjourned 17 times and was dismissed for default on 27.09.2013. The builder also pointed to various criminal matters lodged against the litigant which had also not been disclosed. The Union Ministry of Culture under which the Archaeological Department comes, submitted that the permission for grant of no objection certificate was based on the specific recommendation provided by Respondent No. 2 State government, indicating that the property in question...

'Desecration Of PIL Rules': Gujarat High Court Slaps ₹10 Lakh Costs On Litigant Claiming Encroachment Of Protected Mosque

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags