Gujarat High Court Imposes ₹1.4 Crore 'Exemplary Cost' On Litigants For Filing PIL Without Disclosing Proper Credentials

The Gujarat High Court on Friday (July 11) imposed exemplary costs of Rs 20 Lakh each on seven individuals who filed a PIL challenging development permission granted to a builder, for not disclosing their credentials properly— calling it "doubtful".

During the hearing when the petitioners' counsel sought time to file additional affidavit on petitioners' qualification, a division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice DN Ray orally said,

"You were put on notice by this court in 2022 and time has caught up with you...We are on the question as to how you can maintain this PIL. Your credentials are doubtful...Such unscrupulous litigant can't be permitted to maintain a PIL. And when such person comes with a PIL, which is kind of a sacred litigation created by the court, then such sanctity of litigation itself is compromised. So to maintain that sanctity and sacredness we have to impose exemplary cost to give a message that 'you cannot get away' by approaching this court in a causal manner. You cannot abuse the process of the court". 

When the petitioners' counsel sought to withdraw the PIL, the court said, 

"You have utilised our entire machinery from 2022. The files have travelled from office to court on various occasions...And there are serious matter. 20 mins of judicial time has been taken by you on one day. There would have been others days when this matter was heard. Cost is for this. For misusing process of court, for misutilizing the machinery...everyones time is wasted...At the cost of that litigant who is waiting for us to take up his matter and to decide it".

The court thereafter in its order said: "The writ petition (PIL) is dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs. 20,00,000/- which is to be paid by each of the petitioners and the amount will go to the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority which shall be utilized for the benefit of orphan children. Reasons to follow". 

The counsel for the Petitioners argued that they had moved an application before concerned authorities claiming that constructions made by the respondent builder are illegal.

Meanwhile the senior counsel appearing for the respondent builder raised a preliminary objection to the PIL and pointed to the court's June 16, 2022 order wherein the high court while issuing notice had "made clear" that if the court finds that "averments made in petition are ill-founded or untrue, petitioners would be mulcted with exemplary cost". 

He pointed to first para of the petition which contained the names of the petitioners and said:

"These people are chargesheeted in the offence of extortion, in an FIR, against me for the very property and nothing has been disclosed. There is a private complaint. These are business transaction rivals. This is a private land on which I took permission and constructed a residential commercial complex. Now there is some irregularity according to them (petitioners) in construction. Most of the properties have been sold...". 

On the court's query the senior counsel said that the petitioners filed a rejoinder to the builder's reply however there was no response regarding the builder's contentions.

The court at this stage orally said, "For such unscrupulous litigants there is no place in the court. They have not disclosed their credentials in the PIL. Who are these persons nobody knows. What business they are doing. What is their occupation. There is nothing...7 persons so 20 Lakhs each". 

As the petitioners' counsel argued that their grievance was not against the builder, the court orally said: 

"Sorry this is a cloak. You are seeking a relief under PIL to ventilate your personal grievances, your personal grudges...You cant get away by saying that I am seeking relief for inaction by the authorities...The question of entertaining your grievance would arise once you disclose your credentials. In the PIL you have not disclosed who are these seven persons...The only description in array of parties in a PIL is not sufficient to maintain it. Our rule says and the law of PIL also says that whosoever is coming to the court as a PIL litigant there is a responsibility cast on that person to show that he is a public spirited person. Saying that I am a journalist, I am a social worker is not going to help."

Case title: CHETANGIRI KAILASHGIRI APARNATHI & ORS. STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

R/WPPIL/29/2022 

Click Here To Read/Download Order