The court concluded from the society’s memorandum of association that its stated goal of improving ecology was false.
In a recent case (Sarthi Seva Sangh and Anr. vs. Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors.), the Bombay High Court fined a petitioner Rs. 1 lakh in costs for bringing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) for petty, selfish, and unrelated motives that had no connection to the public interest.
Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Madhav J Jamdar’s bench heard the appeal against the redevelopment of a site in Worli.
The bench instructed the petitioner to present a copy of its Memorandum of Association after being informed by the petitioner society that one of their objectives was supporting the ecology.
Bombay High Court
The court concluded from the memorandum that the petitioner-stated society’s purpose was not to promote the environment and that one of the petitioners, an individual, had no affiliation with the petitioner-society. As a result, it came to the conclusion that the petitioners had not entered the Court with clean hands.
“Simple examination of the society’s goals demonstrates that they do not include advancing ecological. The aforementioned PIL statement is not at all accurate. It is also crucial to notice that petitioner number 2, who is unrelated to petitioner number 1—the society—has affirmed the petition.
As previously stated, the PIL petition makes absolutely no mention of how Petitioner No. 1 feels about Petitioner No. 2. It is evident that the petitioners did not come to this Court with clean hands as a result “It read.
Through lawyer Ranjit Bhosale, the society Sarthi Seva Sangh applied to the court to have a redevelopment plan that would have given an extra Floor Space Index (FSI) to a plot in Worli set aside since the notional plot area was twice as large as the actual physical space. As a result, it tried to demolish buildings built with more FSI.
Notably, the petitioner said that the project was the sole instance of a DCPR violation they had discovered.
Senior attorney Milind Sathe argued that the PIL was filed for political purposes rather than in the public interest. Additionally, he asserted that the disputed plot was not a subdivided plot but rather a portion of a larger plot and that the redevelopment plan complied with DCPR.
The petitioner’s assertion that the project in Worli is the sole unlawful project they are aware of was rejected by the court as untrue.
“It is well known that there are many unauthorized and illegal projects in Mumbai. Therefore, it is beyond a reasonable question and clear that this PIL was filed for improper and contrary to the public interest “It was an ad.
As a result, the Court denied the plea and ordered the Tata Cancer Hospital in Parel to pay the expenses of one lakh rupees.
