Gujarat High Court: In a PIL filed by a businessman and self-acclaimed RTI activist against unauthorised construction near the Lajpore Central Jail, Surat, the Division Bench of Sunita Agarwal*, CJ., and Pranav Trivedi, J., dismissed the PIL with Rs. 20 Lakhs as cost, noting that the petitioner had been caught in a case of blackmailing and extortion whereby he would threaten people with fake cases.
Background
The petitioner, a businessman and self-acclaimed RTI activist, claimed that he was a whistleblower who had exposed many corruption scandals in the past. He filed the present petition against the illegal and unauthorized construction put up by respondent 10 , more particularly near the jail premises of Lajpore Central Jail, Surat. He stated that despite having made several representations about the illegal constructions before the authorities concerned, he was constrained to file the present writ petition.
Analysis
At the outset, the Court noted that in the civil application filed by respondents 10 and 11 it was contended that the petitioner was involved in a blackmailing scandal in District Surat to extort money and an FIR was registered against him under Sections 308(5), 308(7) and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’). The FIR recorded that the petitioner had blackmailed one person to pay Rs. 5 Crores, failing which a complaint would be made against him about the discharge of chemicals by his companies. The FIR also records that a sting operation was conducted by the police authorities based on the complaint of the aforementioned person, and in this sting operation, the petitioner was caught red-handed taking extortion money of Rs. 45 lakhs. The Court further noted that in a reply filed by the petitioner, it was admitted that he was in judicial custody at Lajpore Jail.
To ascertain the scope and maintainability of this PIL, the Court referred to Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B. (2004) 3 SCC 349, wherein the Supreme court held that the person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceedings of public interest litigation, will alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court to raise any issue of violation of the fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. The Court also referred to Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary (1992) 4 SCC 305, wherein it was held that PIL is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking behind the veil of public interest. It was also held that the Court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique consideration, and such petitions of such busybodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold with exemplary costs.
Lastly, the Court referred to a similar case Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 1 SCC 590, wherein the writ petitioner was a lawyer, who filed the PIL raising allegations of unauthorised constructions, whereas he had himself resorted to blackmailing the respondents and was caught red handed accepting blackmailing money.
Considering the facts brought on record by the respondents, the Court stated that it was evident that the petitioner was trying to extort money from the businessmen of Surat city by blackmailing them with a complaint of violation of one or the other laws. The Court held that the present PIL seemed to have been filed with an ulterior motive for personal gain by making allegations of illegal constructions against the respondent society, and the petitioner’s credentials were highly doubtful.
The Court remarked that the fact that the petitioner was caught in one case of blackmailing in a sting operation was sufficient to show him the exit doors of the Court, since such an unscrupulous person could not be permitted to misuse the process of this Court.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition with a cost of Rs 20 Lakhs to be deposited in two months to the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority to be spent in the welfare project for orphan children.
The Court further directed that any other PIL filed in the name of the petitioner about the District Surat, in the future, shall be placed before the Registrar (Judicial) for scrutiny, and no such petition shall be entertained by the registry. The Registrar (Judicial) was also directed to make a further inquiry as to whether any other PIL filed by the present petitioner was pending, and if so, the same shall be listed before this Court at the earliest.
[Ajay Rameshbhai Trivedi v. State of Gujarat, Writ Petition (PIL) No. 90 of 2021, decided on 02-05-2025]
*Judgement authored by: Chief Justice Sunita Aggarwal
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Dipesh V Dalal, G K Vaghani, K T Beladiya
For the respondent: Assistant Government Pleader Hetal Patel, Digant M Popat, Sr. Adv. R.S. Sanjanwala, Aadit R Sanjanwala, Maulik Nanavati
