Man fined ₹82,000 for frivolous petition

NEW DELHI : Cracking a whip on frivolous petitions, the Delhi High Court has initiated criminal contempt proceedings against a person while slapping a cost of ₹82,000 on him for filing a false plea on unauthorised constructions near his house even as his own property was illegal.

A bench of Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Harishankar noted that the plea made a grievance of illegal and unauthorised constructions against the respondents, but he failed to “disclose the illegality of his own construction”.

Terming it as an absolute abuse of law, the court said, “The writ petition is, therefore, completely an abuse of the process of law as well as against the spirit of public interest litigation. Valuable j udicial time has been expended on this.

The court’s direction comes while deciding a plea where the petitioner Raj Kumar Kasana, a resident of Jood Bagh, Kotla Mubarak Pur, contending that there were illegal construction near his house and despite complaints to the South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC), no action has been taken.

The plea sought to remove the illegal constructions near his house. However, during the course of trial, photographs were placed by the respondents showing Kasana was continuing unauthorised construction himself.

Appearing for the private respondent, senior advocate Kirti Uppal contended that the petitioner is using the PIL not only for maintaining private grievances but as a tool to blackmail the property owners.

Records pertaining to a pending case (suit) filed by Kasana seeking permanent injunction from certain properties were also placed in the court where three of the defendants were also arrayed as respondents in the case filed in the HC. Kasana was claiming entitlement of the immovable property against them.

The court noted that the respondents — eight private property owners accused of unauthorised constructions by the petitioner — were being compelled to concede to the prayer made in the suit and that in exchange, the present writ petition would be withdrawn.

The bench, while noting that “a petitioner who files a PIL must approach the court with clean hands”, held that the petitioner must disclose the pendency of any other litigation in which private parties are involved.

“The writ petitioner was required to make a fair and complete disclosure of the fact that there was litigation with the other side,” the court said while imposing a cost on the petitioner payable within two weeks.

It directed Kasana to pay ₹25,000 to SDMC and ₹25,000 to Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee.

In addition, the bench also directed him to pay ₹32,000 to the private respondents with each of them getting ₹4000.

The court also issued notice to Kasana, seeking his response as to why criminal contempt proceedings be not initiated against him.