Saturday, Apr 20, 2024 | Last Update : 01:47 AM IST
Motivated PIL invites 1 lakh Bombay HC fine
The petition was filed seeking to cancel a contract for maintenance of road and award the same to some other contractor.
Mumbai: The Bombay high court has imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on a petitioner terming his public interest litigation (PIL) as motivated. The petition was filed seeking to cancel a contract for maintenance of road and award the same to some other contractor alleging poor quality work and an attempt by the contractor to grab land of farmers.
The division bench comprising of Chief Justice Manjula Chellur and Justice N M Jamdar was hearing a PIL filed by Balasaheb Jadhav, alleging that the contract awarded under Pradhanmantri Gram Sadak Yojana to a contractor for construction, upgradation and maintenance of road between Bondale to Shingorni in Kolegaon village in Solapur, was slow and of poor quality. It was further alleged that there was illegal digging in the private property of farmer and digging of dry ponds for taking soil to use it to construct the road despite special amount being allotted for purchase of soil.
The petitioner also sought action against the contractor by pointing out how poor quality work would endanger lives of children and cattle, if they fall in the gutter next to the road.
After hearing arguments on the admission stage, the bench observed that, “The entire exercise done by the petitioner clearly indicates that either he must be a competitor for the tender in question or supported by the person who must have lost the tender or it is quite possible that the petitioner is the owner of some land where the road is passing through. It clearly indicates that it is nothing but a motivated PIL. The petitioner has concealed his real intention of filing the petition and he has not come to court with clean hands,” the judges observed.
The court then imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on the petitioner.
HC bench observations
- The PIL petition was filed seeking to cancel the contract for road maintenance and award it to some other contractor, alleging poor quality work and attempt by him to grab farmers’ land.
- The bench said the entire exercise was motivated and petitioner was clearly a competitor for the tender in question, or the owner of some land through which the road is passing through.
