The Bombay High Court, yetsrday, on 23rd April, rejected a contractor’s PIL challenging tender conditions as an abuse of court processes. The High Court also ordered the petitioner to pay Rs 50,000 to Mumbai’s KEM Hospital within four months.
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) by a contractor challenging conditions of a tender issued by a government body and termed it to be a ‘sheer abuse of the court process‘. The High Court also imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the petitioner to be paid within four months to the civic-run KEM Hospital in Mumbai.
A division bench consisting of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Arif S Doctor issued an order regarding a PIL filed by Nilesh Chandrakant Kamble. Kamble, who claimed to be a social worker engaged in a similar business as mentioned in the tender issued by the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA), argued that he aggrieved by the eligibility conditions in the bid.
Read Also:Bombay HC Urges Seriousness in COVID-19 Death Compensation Cases
The bench remarked,
“It is regrettable to have to adjudicate on a petition with ulterior motives, purportedly filed in public interest.”
Advocate Indira Labde, representing the petitioner, asserted that because of the challenged tender conditions, certain contractors unable to take part in the bidding process.
The bench observed,
“There has been a significant increase in the filing of PIL petitions before the superior courts in our jurisprudence.”
The bench further commented that rules regarding who can file PILs have been loosened, allowing any member of society or organization to champion the cause of disadvantaged individuals, including the poor or illiterate.
Read Also:Bombay HC Drops Rape Case Against Married Man
The bench stated,
“Allowing a contractor to submit a PIL petition contesting the terms of a tender, in our view, constitutes a clear abuse of the court process and an attempt to contaminate the integrity of Public Interest Litigation.”
Citing the Supreme Court judgment in the State of Uttarakhand vs Balwant Singh Chaufal case, the bench mentioned that the top court emphasized,
“Frivolous PILs seeking to advocate personal or extraneous causes should be discouraged, and such PIL petitions should be dismissed at the outset.”
The bench observed that although the petitioner claimed to be advocating a public cause, he also stated his involvement in a similar business. The petitioner asserted that the PIL a “last resort” and that he had no personal interest in the matter, which the bench noted.
The bench remarked,
“Such a statement, when juxtaposed with the petitioner’s disclosed details in this PIL petition, is highly unusual and clearly disqualifies the petitioner from seeking any relief in this PIL petition.”
Consequently, the bench dismissed the PIL and imposed exemplary costs.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) by the Bombay High Court, labeled as a ‘Sheer Abuse of Court Process,’ highlights the judiciary’s vigilance against misuse of legal avenues. This case highlights the importance of maintaining the integrity of PILs, which are intended to serve public interests rather than personal agendas or commercial motives. Such judicial actions not only reinforce legal accountability but also safeguard the efficacy of PILs as instruments for societal welfare and justice.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
