H.S. Bedi, Acting C.J.@mdashThis writ petition has been filed purported to be in the public interest seeking a mandamus to the official respondents to ensure that no unauthorised constructions were raised on the Ambala Cantt. - Babyal Road and that the premises along the said Road were not allowed to be converted into shops or put to commercial use.
3. It has been pointed out that as the road aforesaid related to a large population living in close proximity to the Ambala Cantt, by permitting unauthorised constructions along the road side and allowing the misuse of the residential purpose for commercial purpose the use of the road had been jeopardised leading to a great deal of hardship to those who were using it.
4. Replies have been filed by respondents. Respondent No. 3 - Municipal Committee, Ambala has stated that respondent Nos. 5 and 6 had submitted a proposed plan to build a house on Plot No. 15 Khasra No. 54/8/14 situated in Mahesh Nagar and that the same had been sanctioned vide letter dated 22.11.2001, Annexure R-3/2 and on receipt of a complaint from the residents of Mahesh Nagar that the aforesaid respondents were misusing the permission granted to them, an inquiry had been conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ambala who had found the complaint as being without merit.
5. A separate reply has also been filed by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in which they have reiterated the contents of the reply filed by respondent No. 3 and have further pointed out that Shri K.K. Jain, father of the petitioner No. 2 had filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking an injunction against respondent Nos. 5 and 6 from raising any construction on the plot in question, in which an application for interim injunction had also been filed and the learned Civil Judge had observed that as the sanction for the building had been granted by the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 13.11.1995 and that the respondents had also purchased the land, the interim injunction already granted in favour of Kuldeep Kumar Jain and Pawan Kumar Jain vide order dated 17.5.1997 was liable to be vacated. It appears also that the Civil suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 10.12.1998, Annexure R-3 annexed with the reply. It has accordingly been pleaded that as the information that the earlier suit had been dismissed, had been withheld in the present interest litigation, it should be thrown out with heavy costs. It has also been pleaded that the petitioner No. 1 Daulat Ram was an employee of Lalita Jain who was closely related to petitioner No. 2 and that it is clear that public interest litigation was, in fact, clearly motivated and, therefore, not maintainable as held by the Supreme Court in the case of
6. As the facts stated above have not been denied by the petitioner, we are of view that the earlier suit which was inter se respondent Nos.5 and 6 had been dismissed and the petitioner had not divulged this fact in the present case, the present petition is a clear abuse of the process of the Court. The Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumal-pad''s case (supra), observed as under:
25. For the last few yeas, inflow of public interest litigation has increased manifold. A considerable judicial time is spent in dealing with such cases. A person acting bona fide alone can approach the court in public interest. Such a remedy is not open to an unscrupulous person who acts, in fact, for someone else. The liberal rule of locus standi exercised in favour of bona fide public interest litigation has immensely helped the cause of justice. Such litigants have been instrumental in drawing attention of this Court and High Courts in matters of utmost importance and in securing orders and directions for many under-privileged such as, pavement dwellers, bonded labour, prisoners'' conditions, children, sexual harassment of girls and women, cases of communal riots, innocent killings, torture, long custody in prison without trial or in the matters of environment, illegal stone quarries, illegal mining, pollution of air and water, clean fuel, hazardous and polluting industries or preservation of forest as in the
7. It was further observed by the Supreme Court that "on a perusal of record, we have no doubt that the application filed by Deepak Agarwal is far from bona fide. He has been set up by others. We strongly deprecate the filing of an entirely misconceived and mala fide application in the garb of public interest by Deepak Aggarwal. He is nothing but a name lender."
8. In the aforesaid judgment, the Court also observed that as the applicant/petitioner had abused the process of Court and wasted enormous judicial time which could have been used for better purposes and incurred a huge expenditure and accordingly imposed costs of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Following the principle laid down in the aforesaid case, we also impose costs of Rs. 25,000/- upon petitioner No. 2, to be deposited with the Municipal Committee within a period of eight weeks failing which this order shall be executable as a decree.
9. Mr. Govind Goel, the learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 6 assures us that the said respondents would build their property only as per the sanctioned building plan and none other.
10. The petition is dismissed in the terms indicated above.
