Gujarat High Court Fines 'Journalist' ₹1 Lakh For Abusing PIL Jurisdiction

The Gujarat High Court imposed cost of Rs. 1 Lakh on a man claiming to be the Chief Editor of Navsari Times Weekly, for filing a PIL based on "false statement and misleading" the court regarding grant of development rights to a company for commercial construction on a land while claiming that it falls in a residential zone. In doing so, the Court while dismissing the PIL, remarked that a person in a position like the petitioner, who had claimed to be a Journalist since the past 14 years and doing social service, has to act responsibly. It added that the purpose of filing of the PIL seemed to be for "personal grudges" with an "ulterior motive". A division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray in its order observed:“...it is clear that the land use of both plot nos.15 and 16 is industrial.The whole basis of filing of the writ-petition...is absolutely false. We, thus, find that the present writ-petition has been filed with false statement made by a person, who claim to be a Journalist of 14 years and is doing social service. A person, who is in such a position has to act responsibly. The purpose of filing of the present writ-petition, the facts noted herein-above, is nothing but seem to be for personal grudges or with ulterior motive."The petitioner had challenged the order of land use permission granted to M/S Mahendra Brothers Export Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No. 3) for commercial use of Survey Nos. 15 and 16, admeasuring 39,994.23 square meters that was converted into non-agricultural use in 1992-93. It was contended in the petition that the land in question was purchased by a third party who wasn't made party, through a registered sale deed on January 1994, who then moved application to use the land commercially on August 2000 and the District Development Officer, Navsari granted the permission on June 2001 for setting up a Diamond Factory.It was stated in the plea that out of 39,994.23 sq. meters, construction was allowed on 6,394.80 sq. meters under Section 65(1) and 67 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. It was then pointed out that the Diamond Factory was built 18-20 years ago, and the Navsari Nagar Palika has been collecting taxes since. The plea further contended that the land in question was then transferred to Respondent No. 3, following an amalgamation order passed by the Bombay High Court on October 2010, though it does not specify which portion of land of 39,994.23 sq. meters was stated in the decision of the Court."Apart from the vague assertion made in paragraph-4.3 of the writ-petition, there is no description of the Company Petition No.404 of 2010 to 410 of 2010 or the order passed therein nor there is any document on record to explain as to which portion of the land in question, total of, plot of 15 and 16, admeasuring 39994.23 square meters, were subject matter of the decision of the Bombay High Court dated 29.10.2010," the court said. The Court observed that the PIL was filed with "incomplete and incorrect facts with a view to mislead the Court". It said that the petitioner's grievance was against the development permission granted to the company, even after its application for development permission was rejected on June 2022, the construction allegedly continued illegally. Thereafter, the petitioner reported about it to Navsari Urban Development Authority on October 2022 and on the said complaint, notices were issued by Navsari Urban Development Authority.It was then contended by the petitioner that the Development Authority informed him that the construction had been stopped and 'promised to provide details in person'. Later, the petitioner made a complaint on February 2023 to the Chief Secretary, Gujarat. Despite this, Development Authority on April 2023 granted fresh development permission to Resp. No. 3, allegedly in violation of CGDR-2017, though it required removal of certain unauthorized structures.Further, the petitioner after learning about the development permission granted to company, had submitted a representation in January 2024, requesting the authority not to grant building use permission. The Court then noted, he made several more representations and filed RTI applications, but received no response, prompting him to file a PIL. The court thus dismissed the PIL.Case Title: Sunilbhai Ratanlal Maittal vs State of Gujarat & Ors.Case Number: WPPIL No. 13 of 2024Click Here To Read/Download Order'Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 99

Gujarat High Court Fines 'Journalist' ₹1 Lakh For Abusing PIL Jurisdiction

Lovina B Thakkar

Tags