Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mr. Imran Suleman Qureshi, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Bombay High Court challenging an amendment dated 21/05/2011 to Clauses 2 and 4 of DCR 33(7) Appendix III, which pertains to the transfer of surplus area in the island city of Mumbai. The petitioner sought quashing of the amendment and disclosure of cases where such transfer was permitted, alleging violation of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution and evasion of stamp duty by developers. The respondents included the Mumbai Building Repair & Reconstruction Board, the State of Maharashtra, the MCGM, and private developers (Respondent Nos. 7 and 8). The court examined the bonafides of the petitioner and found that he had not disclosed any previous public interest litigation or personal injury. The court noted that the petition was filed after a delay of five years from the amendment and appeared to be at the behest of interested parties to settle private scores. The court held that the petitioner lacked locus standi and the petition was an abuse of the process of the court. Consequently, the court dismissed the PIL with costs of Rs. 25,000 to be paid to the Bombay High Court Legal Services Committee.
Headnote
A) Public Interest Litigation - Locus Standi - Bonafides - The petitioner, who claimed to be a social worker, failed to disclose his involvement in any previous public interest litigation or any personal injury. The court held that the petition was not bonafide and was filed at the behest of interested parties to settle private scores. The court dismissed the petition with costs of Rs. 25,000. (Paras 1-36) B) Town Planning - DCR 33(7) Appendix III - Amendment - The impugned amendment dated 21/05/2011 to Clauses 2 and 4 of DCR 33(7) Appendix III was challenged. The court found that the petitioner had no locus standi and the petition was an abuse of process. (Paras 2-36) C) Constitutional Law - Article 14 and 15 - Alleged Violation - The petitioner alleged violation of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. The court did not examine the merits as the petition was dismissed on the ground of lack of bonafides and locus standi. (Paras 2-36)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner has locus standi to maintain the present Public Interest Litigation challenging the amendment to Clauses 2 and 4 of DCR 33(7) Appendix III dated 21/05/2011, and whether the petition is bonafide or constitutes an abuse of the process of the court.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the Public Interest Litigation with costs of Rs. 25,000 to be paid to the Bombay High Court Legal Services Committee.
Law Points
- Public Interest Litigation
- Locus Standi
- Bonafides of Petitioner
- Abuse of Process of Court
- DCR 33(7) Appendix III
- Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act
- 1966
