The Delhi High Court dismissed a PIL demanding the demolition of alleged illegal constructions in Okhla Industrial Area, imposing a INR 25,000 cost for lack of adequate investigation. The petition aimed to direct the MCD, DDA, and DSIIDC to act against unauthorised constructions. However, it was revealed that the owner had necessary permissions and building plans approved. The court found the petition baseless and potentially malicious, intended to malign authorities and extort money. The bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet PS Arora, ordered the petitioner to pay the costs equally to MCD and DDA within four weeks.
The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) demanding the demolition of allegedly illegal constructions in the Okhla Industrial Area. The court imposed a cost of INR 25,000 on the petitioner for failing to conduct adequate investigation prior to filing the petition. The bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet PS Arora, noted that the petition lacked proper groundwork and was potentially filed with malicious intent.
The PIL sought directives for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), Delhi Development Authority (DDA), and Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (DSIIDC) to demolish what the petitioner claimed were unauthorised constructions on two properties in Okhla. The petitioner, a woman, argued that the land in question belonged to the DSIIDC. She had previously submitted a representation to the relevant authorities, urging them to take legal action against the property owner, but alleged that no action had been taken in response to her complaints.
During the hearing, the counsel representing the MCD presented critical documents to the court, including a letter from the DSIIDC that granted the property owner permission to carry out construction work necessary to reinforce the structure. Additionally, the MCD's counsel submitted a building plan and a certificate concerning one of the two properties, demonstrating that the construction was authorised and compliant with regulations.
The court found these submissions significant and concluded that the petitioner had not sufficiently verified the facts before approaching the court. The judges observed that the petitioner had failed to conduct the necessary homework or investigation to support her claims of unauthorised construction. The court's order emphasised that the baseless petition had caused unnecessary litigation and wasted the court's time.
Moreover, the counsel for both the MCD and DDA argued that the petition was not only unfounded but also filed with ulterior motives. They suggested that the petitioner aimed to defame the authorities and possibly extort money, rather than address genuine public interest concerns. The court, agreeing with this viewpoint, dismissed the petition and the accompanying application.
In their ruling, the judges directed the petitioner to pay a total cost of INR 25,000, to be divided equally between the MCD and DDA, within a four-week period. This decision highlights the importance of thorough investigation and genuine intent when filing public interest litigations, warning against the misuse of legal processes to harass or malign others.
The dismissal of this petition serves as a cautionary tale for potential litigants, highlighting the court's intolerance for frivolous or ill-motivated petitions that lack substantial evidence and proper groundwork.
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
