KAMLESH MANILAL MEHTA Vs. AMRELI MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The ten petitioners have filed this petition in the name of public interest litigation challenging the construction of "a shopping center in the play ground of Government Girl's School" in the town of Amreli. On behalf of the respondents, an unaffirmed affidavit-in-reply is filed with an undertaking that it will be affirmed by tomorrow and copies thereof have been given to the learned advocate for the petitioners. The affidavit-in-reply alleges that the present litigation is gross abuse of the process of the Court and of public interest litigation. It is submitted that one Ashokkumar Kava had filed Civil Suit No. 268 of 1995 claiming that he was a tenant of part of the open land and the municipality should be restrained from putting up any construction of the shopping centre at that place and from interferring with the possession of that plaintiff. The ex-parte interim relief was granted and after hearing the defendant-municipality, it was vacated. Same thing happened in the appeal before the District Court where the ex-pane stay was granted and ultimately the Misc. appeal was dismissed and interim relief was vacated. In the revision application before the High Court also, ex-parte interim relief was granted and subsequently vacated and ultimately and the Supreme Court also dismissed the SLP on 27.11.1976.

(2.) Immediately thereafter, the public interest is invoked. Within a week, a notice is issued by one Girdharlal Bijumal, the petitioner No. 6.

(3.) On 6.7.1997, the unsuccessful plaintiff issued a public advertisement that he was in possession of the land and issuing a warning to the intending buyers of shops that a suit was pending (even though findings of all the courts were that he was prima facie not in possession). The municipality had also issued a counter advertisement on 8.7.1997 pointing out the history of litigation. On 9.7.1997, the present petition is affirmed and moved on the next day for urgent orders on 10.7.1997. These dates clearly go to show without any doubt that the present petitioners have acted as proxies of other persons and not genuinely interested in any public cause.