Mr. Manu Mridul, Mr. Sumit Mamgain and Mr. Pratap Singh Rawat, Advocates v. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA ORS

Judgment

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records available before us on this petition.

2. The proceedings of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been instituted ostensibly in public interest with W.P.(C) 2012/2025 Signature Not Verified Digiltally Signed By:SREERAM L Signing Date:21.02.2025 14:34:10 the prayer to remove and demolish ongoing and completed alleged illegal and unauthorized constructions within the regulated area of Ajmeri Gate, which is said to have been raised in violation of the provisions of The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1958’).

3. Prayer clause of the writ petition is extracted herein under:- “(i) Direct the Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 to identify and disclose the ongoing or completed illegal and unauthorized constructions, within the regulated area of the Ajmeri Gate in violation of the AMASR Act, 1958. (ii) Direct the Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 to take immediate action for removal and demolish of ongoing or completed illegal and unauthorized constructions made and raised in the regulated area in violation of the AMASR Act, 1958; (iii) Direct the Respondent No. 2 to take action on the complaints being made by the Petitioner and other persons objectively and effectively without demur; Direct the Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 to take (iv) immediate steps to remove and demolish the illegal and unauthorized construction undertaken by the Respondent No. 5 and other owners of properties in the regulated area of Ajmeri Gate Bazar; Pass such order or further orders, as this Hon‟ble Court may (v) deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

4. Though, apparently the petitioner has sought a prayer for issuance of appropriate directions to the authorities concerned to remove alleged unauthorized constructions in the regulated area of Ajmeri Gate, however, a careful examination of the prayer clause coupled with the averments made in

the writ petition would reveal that the petition is directed against the alleged illegal constructions raised by respondent no.5. W.P.(C) 2012/2025 Signature Not Verified Digiltally Signed By:SREERAM L Signing Date:21.02.2025 14:34:10

5. The background facts and attending circumstances which can be gathered from a perusal of the averments made in this petition reveal that the instant petition has been filed not in public interest but to serve certain individual purposes and that the petition appears to have been filed at the behest of certain individuals, having some or the other dispute with respondent no.5 and the petitioner appears to have only lent his name for instituting the proceedings of the petition.

6. (a) Our conclusion in this regard is based on the following facts:- It has been averred by the petitioner in the petition that since the concerned authorities did not take any action against the alleged illegal construction said to have been raised by respondent no.5, others in the vicinity are emboldened in raising illegal constructions with impunity without any regard to the authority of law. (b) It has also been averred by the petitioner that respondent no.5 is the owner of certain properties on which illegal constructions have been allegedly raised by him adding 2nd and 3rd floor which falls within the regulated area under the Act, 1958. The petitioner thereafter, enlists such properties owned by respondent no.5 as Shop Nos. 140 to 142 and 151 to 158, Main Bazar, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi, 110006. (c) It has been stated that since the illegal construction raised by respondent no.5 exist in the regulated area and therefore, as per the statutory requirement of Act, 1958, no permission for construction from the municipal body concerned could be taken without requisite permission under the Act, 1958 which is required to be accorded by the Archaeological Survey of W.P.(C) 2012/2025 Signature Not Verified Digiltally Signed By:SREERAM L Signing Date:21.02.2025 14:34:10 India (hereinafter referred to as ‘ASI’). It has thus been stated that respondent no.5 did not obtain any permission from ASI and therefore, any construction raised in absence thereof is unauthorized and illegal. (d) It to be noticed that a writ petition bearing number W.P.(C) 2696/2021, was filed by one Mohd. Abrar before this Court with the grievance that respondent no.10 in the said writ petition (respondent no.5 herein) had raised certain illegal and unauthorized construction at property bearing nos.150 to 158, Main Bazar, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi, 110006. The reference of the said writ petition and the order passed therein, have been made by the petitioner in this writ petition as well. The said writ petition was, however, disposed of noticing the statement made by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Corporation’) by means of an order dated 20.03.2023. (e) Mohd. Abrar had filed the said writ petition with the assertion inter alia that the construction had begun somewhere around January, 2019 and that the construction of the 2nd and 3rd floor was carried out by the respondent no.5 without obtaining any sanctioned building plan and that the subject property was within the prohibited and regulated area as per the Act,

1958. (f) However, learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the said writ petition after noticing the averments made in the affidavit filed by the Corporation to the effect that upon inspection it was found that property consisted of ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor which was commercially occupied and that at the time of inspection, no new W.P.(C) 2012/2025 Signature Not Verified Digiltally Signed By:SREERAM L Signing Date:21.02.2025 14:34:10 construction activity was found in progress. The Court also took note of another averment made in the affidavit filed by the Corporation in the said writ petition that a Civil Suit bearing no. CS No.241/2020, Mohd. Hussain v. Ram Charan Chopra & Ors., with the allegations of unauthorized construction in the property raised by respondent no.5 was also pending adjudication before the Court of ASCJ, Delhi. Further, learned Single Judge while disposing of the said writ petition by means of the order dated

20.03.2023, also noted the contents of the Status Report tendered to the Court by the learned Standing Counsel representing the Corporation wherein it was stated that the property in question was inspected by the officials of the Corporation on 14.03.2023 and upon inspection it was noticed that no new construction activity was found in progress. The mention of the aforesaid Civil Suit was also made in the said Status Report submitted by the Corporation, which was also taken note of by the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition. (g) Learned Single Judge, in his order dated 20.03.2023, observed that considering that it had repeatedly been stated by the Corporation that during various inspections no further construction was found to be ongoing and also that earlier construction had been opined to be old, therefore, no further orders were required to be passed. The operative portion of the order dated

20.03.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of W.P.(C) 2696/2021, is extracted herein below:- “9. Considering that it has been stated repeatedly by MCD that during various inspections, no further construction was found to be going and in view of the fact that the earlier construction has been opined to be old and occupied, no further orders are required to be passed. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of alongwith the W.P.(C) 2012/2025 Signature Not Verified Digiltally Signed By:SREERAM L Signing Date:21.02.2025 14:34:10 pending applications.” (h) The order dated 20.03.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge, was subjected to challenge in LPA 457/2023, which was dismissed by means of an order dated 23.05.2023, passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court by observing that “As no new construction activity was noticed by the MCD on the subject property, learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition”. The operative portion of the order passed by the Division Bench in the aforesaid LPA is extracted herein below:- “7. As no new construction activity was noticed by the MCD on the subject property, the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition.

8. In view of the above, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the Order passed by the learned Single Judge.

9. Resultantly, application(s), if any.” the LPA is dismissed, along with pending (i) Learned Single Judge while passing the order dated 20.03.2023, in W.P.(C) 2696/2021, has also noticed the stand taken therein by respondent no.10 in the said writ petition (respondent no.5 herein) that he had taken certain eviction proceedings against the erstwhile tenant and that the writ petition was filed as an offshoot of the eviction proceedings where eviction order was already passed against the tenant and that the said writ petition was motivated. (j) These facts and the attending circumstances which apparently led to filing of the instant petition, takes the Court to infer that once the earlier attempt made by instituting the proceedings of W.P.(C) 2696/2021 and LPA W.P.(C) 2012/2025 Signature Not Verified Digiltally Signed By:SREERAM L Signing Date:21.02.2025 14:34:10 457/2023, against respondent failed, the instant petition has been filed as a camouflage to subserve the public interest. (k) We may also note that for establishing the identity of the petitioner, reliance has been placed on a Registration Certificate of a two-wheeler, which expired on 18.12.2020. (l) The petitioner also relies upon the application enclosed as Annexure P-4 to the instant petition which is dated 05.02.2020, and is said to have been submitted to the authorities of ASI as also to those of North Delhi Municipal Corporation, however, no documents have been enclosed with the writ petition depicting if the said application/representation against alleged illegal and unauthorized construction raised by respondent no.5, was ever received in the respective offices of the Corporation or the ASI. Further, the petitioner has relied upon certain other complaints made by certain other individuals, namely, one Mr. Mohd. Aqueel and Mr. Jalauddin, both of which are said to have been received in the office of Deputy Commissioner of the Corporation on 07.02.2024, and are almost identical in nature, alleging illegal constructions raised by respondent no.5. (m) Once this Court in its order dated 20.03.2023 found that the constructions raised by respondent no.5 are old and that the same had not begun in the month of January, 2019 and on the said count no interference was made by the learned Single Judge and thereafter, the attempt to get the construction raised by respondent no.5 also failed on dismissal of the aforesaid LPA, the instant petition styled as public interest litigation (hereinafter referred to as ‘PIL’) has been filed. (n) In light of the facts as stated above, we are of the opinion that the instant writ petition has been filed as a camouflage not to safeguard or W.P.(C) 2012/2025 Signature Not Verified Digiltally Signed By:SREERAM L Signing Date:21.02.2025 14:34:10 subserve the public interest, though it appears that the petition essentially, seeks action against respondent no.5 in respect of certain alleged illegal constructions, regarding which learned Single Judge by means of his order dated 20.03.2023 and thereafter, a Coordinate Bench of this Court by means of an order dated 23.05.2023, has refused the prayer for issuance of a direction for demolition. 7. In the facts of the present case as narrated above, we are of the opinion that the petition has not been filed for bona fide reasons; rather, is motivated and is directed against the alleged illegal constructions raised by respondent no.5. 8. The entire law revolving around the jurisprudence developed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Courts was exhaustibly reviewed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, (2010) 3 SCC 402. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court while discussing various stages of development of PIL jurisprudence in the country, on one hand has observed that PIL petitions intending to espouse public causes and cause of general interest, should be encouraged, however, on the other hand, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also put a word of caution by observing that tendency of filing frivolous and vexatious petitions in the name of PIL petitions should be curbed at the threshold. 10. Paragraph nos.147 to 158 of the report in Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra) are relevant to be noticed which are extracted herein below:- “147. Thus, the Supreme Court has attempted to create a body of jurisprudence that accords broad enough standing to admit genuine PIL petitions, but nonetheless limits standing to thwart frivolous and vexatious petitions. The Supreme Court broadly tried to curtail the W.P.(C) 2012/2025 Signature Not Verified Digiltally Signed By:SREERAM L Signing Date:21.02.2025 14:34:10 frivolous public interest litigation petitions by two methods—one monetary and second, non-monetary.

148. The first category of cases is that where the Court on the filing of frivolous public interest litigation petitions, dismissed the petitions with exemplary costs. In Neetu v. State of Punjab [(2007) 10 SCC 614 : AIR 2007 SC 758] the Court concluded that it is necessary to impose exemplary costs to ensure that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the courts.

149. In S.P. Anand v. H.D. Deve Gowda [(1996) 6 SCC 734 : AIR 1997 SC 272] the Court warned that (SCC p. 745, para 18) it is of utmost importance that those who invoke the jurisdiction of this Court “seeking a waiver of the locus standi rule must exercise restraint in moving the Court by not plunging in areas wherein they are not well- versed”.

150. In Sanjeev Bhatnagar v. Union of India [(2005) 5 SCC 330 : AIR 2005 SC 2841] this Court went a step further by imposing a monetary penalty against an advocate for filing a frivolous and vexatious PIL petition. The Court found that the petition was devoid of public interest, and instead labelled it as “publicity interest litigation”. Thus, the Court dismissed the petition with costs of Rs 10,000.

151. Similarly, in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra [(2005) 1 SCC 590] the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's monetary penalty against a member of the Bar for filing a frivolous and vexatious PIL petition. This Court found that the petition was nothing but a camouflage to foster personal dispute. Observing that no one should be permitted to bring disgrace to the noble profession, the Court concluded that the imposition of the penalty of Rs 25,000 by the High Court was appropriate. Evidently, the Supreme Court has set clear precedent validating the imposition of monetary penalties against frivolous and vexatious PIL petitions, especially when filed by advocates.

152. This Court, in the second category of cases, even passed harsher orders. In Charan Lal Sahu v. Zail Singh [(1984) 1 SCC 390 : AIR 1984 SC 309] the Supreme Court observed that (SCC p. 400, para 17), “we would have been justified in passing a heavy order of costs against the two petitioners” for filing a “light-hearted and indifferent” PIL petition. However, to prevent “nipping in the bud a well-founded claim on a future occasion”, the Court opted against imposing monetary costs on the petitioners. In that case, this Court concluded that the W.P.(C) 2012/2025 Signature Not Verified Digiltally Signed By:SREERAM L Signing Date:21.02.2025 14:34:10 petition was careless, meaningless, clumsy and against public interest. Therefore, the Court ordered the Registry to initiate prosecution proceedings against the petitioner under the Contempt of Courts Act. Additionally, the Court forbade the Registry from entertaining any future PIL petitions filed by the petitioner, who was an advocate in that case.

153. In J. Jayalalitha v. Govt. of T.N. [(1999) 1 SCC 53] this Court laid down that public interest litigation can be filed by any person challenging the misuse or improper use of any public property including the political party in power for the reason that interest of individuals cannot be placed above or preferred to a larger public interest.

154. This Court has been quite conscious that the forum of this Court should not be abused by anyone for personal gain or for any oblique motive. In BALCO [(2002) 2 SCC 333 : AIR 2002 SC 350] this Court held that the jurisdiction is being abused by unscrupulous persons for their personal gain. Therefore, the Court must take care that the forum be not abused by any person for personal gain.

155. In Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware [(2005) 1 SCC 590] this Court expressed its anguish on misuse of the forum of the Court under the garb of public interest litigation and observed (SCC p. 595, para 12) that the “[p]ublic interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest, an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity-seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. … The court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations….”

156. In Thaware case [(2005) 1 SCC 590] the Court encouraged the imposition of a non-monetary penalty against a PIL petition filed by a member of the Bar. The Court directed the Bar Councils and Bar Associations to ensure that no member of the Bar becomes party as petitioner or in aiding and/or abetting files frivolous petitions carrying the attractive brand name of public interest litigation. This direction impels the Bar Councils and Bar Associations to disbar members found guilty of filing frivolous and vexatious PIL petitions. W.P.(C) 2012/2025 Signature Not Verified Digiltally Signed By:SREERAM L Signing Date:21.02.2025 14:34:10