Gujarat High Court
Jhalabhai Revabhai Satiya (Bharwad) vs State Of Gujarat on 31 July, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/47/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
WRIT PETITION (PIL) (WRIT PETITION (PIL)) NO. 47 of 2023
With
R/WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 35 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
JHALABHAI REVABHAI SATIYA (BHARWAD)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MIHIR H PATHAK(5261) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MANTHAN K BHATT(6549) for the Opponent(s) No. 5
NANAVATI & CO.(7105) for the Opponent(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s) No. 1,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 31/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
AGARWAL)
1. Heard Mr. Mihir Pathak, learned advocate appearing for
the petitioner, Mr. Maulik Nanavati, learned advocate
appearing for the respondent no. 2 and Mr. G. H. Virk,
learned Government Pleader appearing for the State –
Page 1 of 40
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:24:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/47/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
respondent and perused the record.
2. The above-noted two Public Interest Writ Petitions namely
Writ Petition (PIL) No. 35 of 2025 and Writ Petition (PIL)
No. 47 of 2023 have been filed at different point of time by
the same petitioner, namely Mr. Jhalabhai Revabhai Satiya
(Bharwad), who claims to be a social worker and RTI
Activist and a resident of District: Vadodara. In the writ
petition filed in the year 2023 (WPPIL No. 47 of 2023), the
petitioner has prayed the following reliefs:-
(A) YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to issued a writ of
mandamus or a writ in the nature of the mandamus
and/or a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of
certiorari or and any other appropriate writ, order and
direction to the State Government and/or appropriate
authority i.e. Respondents to immediately to readjust FP
no.70 in its OP no. 70 and the FP no.18 may be given in
its OP no. 18, which is at Survey no. 379; in TP Scheme
no. 8, Gotri, Vadodara; as per Annexure-‘C’ & ‘D’ Colly(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS, may be pleased to direct the
Respondent authorities the merger of plot no. 18 and 70
is illegal under the law and the such illegality may be
rectify immediately and the Raja Chithi based on above
merger dated 20.10.2021 must be cancelled
immediately.
(C) Pending the present petition, Your Lordship may be
pleased to direct the concerned Respondents to stop the
construction work which is going on based on Raja
Chithi no. HB-48/ward-11/2021-2022 dated 20.10.2021
by M/s. Excellence Developers, so that the innocent
general public may not loss their hard earned money,
till final disposal of the present Writ (PIL) Petition;
Page 2 of 40
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:24:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/47/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
(D) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to grant any
other and further relief for better implementation of
Town Planning Schemes in Gujarat State as may be
deemed just and proper in the interest of justice and
fitness of things;
3. The petitioner in this petition of 2023, is raising an issue
pointing out illegality in implementation of the Town
Planning Scheme in different villages of Vadodara. At an
earlier point of time, a writ petition in the nature of Public
Interest Litigation, namely Writ Petition (PIL) No. 30 of
2022 was filed by the petitioner raising a core issue of
Maldhari community. One more Writ Petition (PIL) No. 20
of 2023 was filed raising illegality in the implementation
of the Town Planning Scheme in different villages of
District: Vadodara.
4. The statement in the Writ Petition (PIL) No. 47 of 2023 is
that the petitioner is a resident of Vadodara and being an
RTI activist and social worker, he would raise issues of
malpractices and corruption being perpetuated in
declaration, execution and implementation of the Town
Planning Schemes by the officers of the department in
connivance with the private parties. One developer has
been impleaded as respondent no. 5 therein. The prayers
made in the writ petition, as noted hereinabove, are to
Page 3 of 40
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:24:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/47/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
cancel the development permission granted to the private
respondent no. 5 as it resulted into loss of hardened
money of the innocent general public. Further prayers
made in the writ petition are to immediately readjust the
Final Plot No. 70 in its Original Plot No. 70 and Final Plot
No. 18 should be given in its Original Plot No. 18 which is
at Survey No. 379, in T. P. Scheme No. 8, Gotri, Vadodara.
5. Pertinent is to note that in none of the paragraphs of the
writ petition, the petitioner has disclosed as to who was
the owner of Survey No. 379 which was incorporated in
the T. P. Scheme No. 8,Gotri, Vadodara or the original
owner / occupier of Original Plot No. 70 and Original Plot
No. 18 which were given Final Plot No. 70 and 18,
respectively; in the said T.P. Scheme.
6. The statement in the paragraph no. 4.5 of the writ petition
are sought to be placed before us by Mr. Mihir H. Pathak,
learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, to submit
that the developer namely the respondent no. 5 had been
given Raja chithi/development permission since
20.10.2021, with specific conditions that the Draft T.P.
Scheme was always subject to changes. Therefore, the
Page 4 of 40
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:24:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/47/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
construction should have been raised only in those final
plots which were given in their original plots. However,
with the assistance of the officers (whose names are not
disclosed in the writ petition) the builder had completed
the construction and if any changes are ordered then the
innocent purchasers of the property would be at risk.
7. From the aforesaid statement made in the paragraph no.
4.5, atleast it is evident that the petitioner was raising the
cause of certain private persons who may be prospective
buyers of the plot over which development had been
carried out by the respondent no. 5. In any case, the
contentions made in the paragraph no. 4.5 of the writ
petition are not complete in all respects with regard to
implementation of the town planning scheme which is
governed by a statutory enactment known as the Gujarat
Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976.
8. The provisions of the Town Planning Act, 1976 require
implemention of Town Planning Scheme in three stages,
the first stage is of preparation of the Draft Town Planning
Scheme by the local body, namely the Corporation and the
sanction by the State Government thereof. The second
Page 5 of 40
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:24:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/47/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
stage is preparation of the preliminary Town Planning
Scheme by the Town Planning Officer appointed by the
State Government within the meaning of the Town
Planning Act, 1976, and the final stage is of preparation of
the final scheme by the Town Planning Officer. The Draft
Preliminary and the Final Town Planning Schemes are all
required to be sanctioned by the State Government at
different stages in accordance with the provisions of the
Town Planning Act, 1976.
9. Thus, preparation of Town Planning Scheme and sanction
thereof is a structured procedure governed by the
provisions of the Town Planning Act, 1976. For any
dispute related to the carving out of a final plot in the
Town Planning Scheme, the individual owners/
occupiers /possessors will have a right to raise their
objections before the appropriate authority.
10. Further with the sanction of the Preliminary Town
Planning Scheme under Section 65, it becomes part of the
Act by virtue of Section 67 of the Town Planning Act,
1976. There are provisions in Sections 66 and 67 A for
resolution of any dispute relating to the Town Planning
Page 6 of 40
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:24:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/47/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
Scheme. Section 66 confers right on all persons interested
in the scheme to raise their objections by making
representations to the Town Planning Officer, before
the preliminary scheme is forwarded by the Town
Planning Officer to the State Government and such
representations are to be forwarded by the Town Planning
Officer together with the objections of such persons
interested, if any, to the State Government. The inquiry at
the ends of the State Government would have to be made
before the Town Planning Scheme becomes the part of the
Act by virtue of Section 66 of the Town Planning Act,
1976, with the notification issued by the State
Government. Section 68 empowers the appropriate
authority to evict any person occupying any land which is
not entitled to occupy under the preliminary scheme by
summarily evicting him.
11. In the scheme of the Town Planning Act, 1976, it is, thus,
evident that any dispute relating to declaration, execution
and implementation of the Town Planning Scheme shall
have to be raised or agitated before the Town Planning
Officer or before the State Government, taking recourse to
Page 7 of 40
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:24:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/47/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
the provisions of the said Act.
12. In any case, the issues sought to be raised by the
petitioner herein in the nature of Public Interest Litigation
targeting one allottee / developer of final plot in the Town
Planning Scheme who is impleaded as respondent no. 5
herein, cannot be appreciated. Apart from the bald
assertion made in the writ petition about the alleged
illegality/malpractices in the implementation of the Town
Planning Scheme by the officers of the Corporation (which
itself is a vague statement), there is no disclosure as to
the stage of implementation of the Town Planning
Scheme.
13. The dispute is about allotment of the plot in question in
favour of the respondent no. 5 and the grant of
development permission in the year 2021 vide Raja Chithi
dated 20.10.2021. Pertinent is to note that this writ
petition has been filed in the year 2023, after a period of
two years of grant of development permission with the
prayer that the construction being raised by the
respondent no. 5 at the relevant point of time be stopped.
The source of information or the copy of the development
Page 8 of 40
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:24:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/47/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
permission received by the petitioner for the purpose of
filing of the writ petition, has not been disclosed in the
petition. The statement made in the paragraph nos. 4.6
and 5 of the writ petition are, however, relevant to be
noted hereinbelow.
“4.6 The petitioner states that due to persistent action
of the Petitioner, the authority initiated verification of
the documents of the builder like map, layout,
rajachithi and other documents, but yet the
construction has not been stopped. But no concrete
step has been taken till date. This is very risky
situation for the general public at large, because if
they will purchase such property then, if any changes
are made in TP Scheme then the purchasers will be
the sufferer. Copies of the documents and
communications of the authority regarding the
complaints and applications of the petitioner are
annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE – F colly.
5. The Petitioner submits that the source of
information of the facts pleaded is based on the
information received from the documents of the
concerned local authorities. The Petitioned also filed
RTI application for getting specific information, but
still. those applications are not answered.”
14. None of the RTI applications allegedly filed by the
petitioner for getting specific information, has been
brought on record. The copies of the documents and
communications of the authority regarding the complaints
and applications of the petitioner, however, have been
appended as Annexure – ‘5’. One of the applications dated
Page 9 of 40
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:24:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/47/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
03.02.2023 bearing signature of the petitioner herein is
appended at page nos. ’38’ to ’43’ of the paper-book,
which is on a letter-head, wherein in bold letters the
words “RTI activist” is mentioned with the name Mr.
Jhalabhai Revabhai Satiya (Bharvad) of the petitioner
herein. Further, on both sides of the letter-head at the top,
the photographs of the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India
and Dr. Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar, the Father of the
Constitution can be seen wherein the words “Adarsh and
Samvidhan” , are mentioned below the photographs.
15. Taking note of the above facts from the writ petition No.
47 of 2023, we may go through the record of the writ
petition (PIL) No. 35 of 2025, which has been filed by the
petitioner with respect to a different plot allotted in the
Town Planning Scheme, 63 of Gotri Village, Vodadara. In
the said writ petition filed on 08.04.2025, the petitioner
gave a reference of two writ petitions namely Writ petition
(PIL) No. 30 of 2022 and Writ Petition (PIL) No. 47 of
2023, while making a statement that he is raising a very
serious issue of management and implementation of the
Town Planning Scheme in various areas of Vadodara city,
Page 10 of 40
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:24:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/47/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
inasmuch as, the authorities are not doing their duty as
per law.
16. In a vague manner, it is stated in the writ petition that
when the Town Planning Scheme is declared or
implemented, the core purpose of the same is that the
Government land shall deduct 40% of the total area of the
proposed land so as to develop and create public utilities
and for that 40% of area, no development is permissible.
17. It is further stated in paragraph no. 4.1 of the writ petition
that the petitioner came to know that while implementing
the Town Planning Scheme No. 63 of Gotri: Village,
Vadodara, the authority has deducted less than 40% of the
land from the Survey No. 108 Village:Gotri, Vadoara
violating the regulations namely General Development
Control Regulation (GDCR). There is no disclosure as to
how and when the petitioner came to know about the facts
stated in the said paragraph no. 4.1 of the writ petition.
18. There is no whisper about the notification issued for
implementation of the Town Planning Scheme No. 63 of
Gotri Village, Vadodara as required under the Town
Page 11 of 40
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:24:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/47/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
Planning Act, 1976. In a bald manner, again the petitioner
seeks to submit in paragraph nos. 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6
of the Writ Petition (PIL) No. 35 of 2025 as under:-
“4.2. The petitioner obtained the documents of this land
from the authority, then it was found that TPO, vadodara
vide his letter dated 23.11.2022, gave his opinion about the
land wherein, the authority said that Survey no. 912 has
Original Plot no. 108 and the said plot is 10623 sqmt. land.
Therefore as per calculation the authority had to allow
development only on 6374 sqmt land, whereas the
authority had allowed the construction on 7463 sqmt. land.
The authority has nowhere mentioned in his report that
why 1089 sqmt land has been extra allowed to the builder.
A copy of letter dated 23.11.22 is annexed hereto and
marked as ANNEXURE -C.4.3 Therefore the Petitioner moved an application dated
1.11.23, declaring above facts to the Authorities and the
State Government that as per GDCR regulation, the
authority had to deduct the land as per the regulations of
GDCR. A copy of application dated 1.11.23 is annexed
hereto and marked as ANNEXURE -D.4.4 The Authority responded vide letter dated 1.1.23
(1.1.24) that at the time of finalization of the Scheme, the
appropriate action will be taken vide letter dated 1.1.23
(1.1.24). A copy of letter dated 1.1.23 (1.1.24) is annexed
hereto and marked as ANNEXURE – E.4.5 It is submitted that vide letter dated 12.9.23, the TPO,
Vadodara opined to cancel such permissions which are not
as per regulations of GDCR. A copy of letter dated 12.9.23
is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE -F.4.6 The Petitioner moved one more application dated
8.2.24 giving all details and and the letter of TPO dated
12.9.23 that all such permission wherein 40% ratio is not
maintained shall be rejected. The Petitioner also gave
reminders on 5.4.24, 17.4.24 The authority did not reply to
above application. A copy of application dated 8.2.24,
5.4.24, 17.4.24 are annexed hereto and marked as
ANNEXURE – G colly.
Page 12 of 40
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:24:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/47/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
19. In paragraph no. 4.7, it is stated that the petitioner filed a
Special Civil Application No. 8005 of 2004 as authorities
were not deciding his representation and thereafter,
withdrew it as he felt that the issue would be of public
cause.
20. The order of withdrawal dated 20.02.2025 of the said writ
petition has been placed before us by Mr. G. H. Virk,
learned Government Pleader, which is relevant to be
quoted hereinunder:
“Learned advocate for the petitioner upon
instructions from his client requested for withdrawal
of the petition with a liberty to file appropriate
proceedings.
Permission as prayed for is granted.
This petition is disposed of as withdrawn.”
21. The statements in paragraph no. 5 of the writ petition
(PIL) No. 35 of 2025 are copy-paste to that of the
statement in writ petition (PIL) No. 47 of 2023 and none of
the RTI applications allegedly filed have been appended
herein. The application appended at page nos. ’27’ and
’39’ of the paper-book are representations made on the
letter-head as noted in the foregoing paragraph. Terming
himself as an “RTI Activist” in bold letters on letter-head
Page 13 of 40
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:24:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/47/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
with the photographs of the Hon’ble Prime Minister of
India and Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, the Father of the
constitution, with the words “Adarsh” and “Samvidhan”,
below the photographs, repeated applications seem to
have been filed by the petitioner before the Town Planning
and Urban Development Department and the Collector,
Vadodara. None of the above applications can be termed
as the applications made under the RTI Act. However, by
using this tactics, the petitioner has succeeded in getting
certain information/documents from the Vadodara
Municipal Corporation which have been used for the
purposes of filing of two writ petitions, one in the year
2023 and another in the year 2025. The prayers made in
writ petition (PIL) No. 35 of 2025, are noted herein-
under:-
“(A) YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to issued a writ of
mandamus or a writ in the nature of the mandamus and/or
a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or
and any other appropriate writ, order and direction to the
State Government and/or appropriate authority i.e
Respondents to immediately follow the law laid down by
this court in Vadodara Shaheri Jilla Khedut Mandal and
Ors. vs. Vadodara Municipal Corporation and Ors., 2014
LawSuit (Guj) 823 and appropriate deduction of land may
be made from the FP no. 108, Village Gotri, Vadodara;
(B) Pending the present petition, Your Lordship may be
pleased to direct the concerned Respondents to stop thePage 14 of 40
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:24:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/WPPIL/47/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
construction work which is going on as per development
permission no. HB 110 and 111 of Ward 11 of 2021-22
dated 31.3.2022 Annx “B” in FP no. 108, till final disposal
of the present Writ (PIL) Petition;
(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to grant any other
and further relief for better implementation of Town
Planning Schemes in Gujarat State as may be deemed just
and proper in the interest of justice and fitness of things;”
22. A perusal of the prayers makes it evident that the
petitioner is seeking a direction commanding the
respondent authorities to stop construction work which
was going on as per the Development permission No. HB
110 and 111 of Ward 11 of 2021-22 dated 31.03.2022 in
Final Plot No. 108. The owner/occupier/developer of the
said plot, to whom development permission was granted
on 31.03.2022, interestingly, has niether been impleaded
in the writ petition of the year 2025, nor there is any
disclosure about such a person in the entire writ petition.
23. The pattern of filing of abovenoted two writ petitions of
2023 and 2025, from the averments made in both the writ
petitions, is a clear reflection of modus operandi of the
petitioner; in first filing application on the letter- head
which has been printed in an illegal manner claiming to be
an RTI activist to get information or documents from the
Page 15 of 40
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:24:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/47/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
Corporation and then filing writ petitions after a gap of 2
to 3 years of the grant of development permission, when
substantial construction work has already been carried
out. The prayers made in both the writ petitions are
identical, inasmuch as, the relief has been sought therein
to stop the ongoing construction work, pursuant to the
development permissions granted in the year 2021 and
2022, in favour of private allottees.
24. It is submitted by Mr. Maulik Nanavati, learned advocate
appearing for the Corporation that approximately 40 odd
applications have been filed by the petitioner herein from
time to time relating to the different plots where multi-
story residential or commercial buildings have been raised
or are being constructed by the owners/occupiers, namely
the persons in whose favour development permissions
have been granted. Further the use of the photograph of
the Hon’ble the Prime Minister of India at the letter-head
of the petitioner is in clear violation of Section 3 read with
Clause 9 A of the Schedule of the Emblems and Names
(Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950.
Page 16 of 40
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:24:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/47/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
25. It is pointed out by Mr. G. H. Virk, learned Government
Pleader that not only four Public Interest Litigations (as
noted hereinabove) have been filed by the petitioner
herein, but he had also filed two other writ petitions as
Special Civil Application No. 7986 of 2024 and Special
Civil Application No. 7992 of 2024 with the prayers to
decide his representations dated 23.02.2024 and
05.03.2024; respectively, with respect to alleged illegal
excavation of minerals from certain plots of Village: Jalora,
Taluka: Limkheda, District: Dahod.
26. Further with regard to the previous writ petition filed by
the petitioner as writ petition (PIL) No. 30 of 2022, we
may note from the order of disposal of the said writ
petition dated 08.04.2022 that the petitioner claimed
himself therein to be a Contractor belonging to Maldhari
Community. The said writ petition was, however, disposed
of, noticing that the petitioner once admits that he
belongs to Maldhari Community, he cannot be said to be
espousing the public cause. The observations made in the
paragraph nos.4 and 6 of the judgment and order dated
08.04.2022 of disposal of the writ petition No. 30 of 2022
Page 17 of 40
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:24:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/47/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
are relevant to be extracted hereinbelow.
“4. Petitioner, who is claiming to be a contractor and
belonging to Maldhari community, is claiming to
espouse the public cause in this petition contending
inter alia that he has no personal interest. It is
further contended that petitioner is member of
Maldhari community and being aware of the ground
situation of the said community, which mainly earns
their livelihood through milk vending business by
having their cattle, is espousing their cause as they
are not financially well off. Petitioner further states
that Maldhari community is very economically
backward and they are solely dependent on the
production of milk from their cattle. It is stated that
on account of expansion of the city, the community
has lost the land where the cattle were being kept
and on account of lack of funds to own more lands to
accommodate the cattle, they are being kept in
nearby lands for grazing and feeding purposes and
for said purpose gauchar land reserved in rural
areas.
“6. At the outset, it requires to be noticed that the
present petition is not to being entertained and is
being disposed of at the threshold itself, without
even issuing notice to the respondents for the
following reasons.
(i) Petitioner who claims to be a contractor and
espousing the public cause, namely, cause of the
Maldhari community has himself admitted that he
belongs to Maldhari community which mean he has
personal interest. Even if we ignore this fact for a
moment and proceed to consider the claim of the
petitioner on merits, we notice that gauchar lands
are to be provided by the State or same is to be
reserved for the purposes of the grazing of the cattle
as provided in the Gujarat Land Revenue Code at the
Village level, Taluka level and District level. It is
these provisions which have been kept in mind by
the Coordinate Bench while issuing directions in the
matters of Sharda Sahakari Gruh Mandali Ltd. as
well as Mustak Hussain Mehndi Hussain cases
referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner. The
State is not expected of to provide gauchar land in
the cities like Ahmedabad, Surat, Vadodara etc.Page 18 of 40
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:24:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/WPPIL/47/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
Such claim requires to be considered for the purpose
of rejection. If the persons who own the cattle in the
cities, then they are required to ensure that the said
cattle are kept in cattle shed or not allowed to stray
in public streets, which would be causing public
nuisance and many a times, road traffic accident or
other mishaps would occur due to straying. Merely
because the owners of the cattle is possessing or
owning them, it cannot be allowed to stray on the
streets in the cities like Ahmedabad, Surat,
Vadodara etc. and that too for purposes of grazing.
There is a responsibility cast on the owners of the
cattle to tither their cattle in the cattle shed and not
to allow them to graze elsewhere like leaving them
in the city on roads. In that view of the matter,
prayer sought for by the petitioner in this petition
for issuing direction to the respondents to provide
gauchar land in cities would be impermissible and it
stands rejected.
(ii) A fervent plea has been made by Mr.Mihir
Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
that persons who are owning cattle, hail from very
weak financial economic background and being poor
are unable to pay the huge fines imposed by the
Municipal authorities. Even according to the
petitioner, the said cattle which have been seized
are being released on payment of prescribed fine,
the cattle which are not registered which has since
been made compulsory or not being released for
want of registration of cattle. Learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner has raised two
contentions, namely (i) there being no effective
implementation of registration of cattle; and (ii) the
fines imposed are exorbitant and the cattle owners
who hail from poor economic strata of the society
are unable to pay the said fines. It is open for such
persons whose cattle have been seized to approach
the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation or
the Chief Officer of the Municipality to redress their
grievances with regard to reduction of fine or
requiring the authorities to take up a drive for
registration of the cattles which has not yet been
registered. In fact, it would be necessary to note at
this juncture itself that steps have been taken by the
Municipal authorities as well the State by calling
upon the cattle owners to register their cattle
Page 19 of 40
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:24:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/47/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
pursuant to the directions issued in Sharda
Sahakari Gruh Mandali Ltd. and Mustak
Hussain Mehndi Hussain’s case. Hence, it cannot
be gainsaid by the owners of the cattle that
registration is onerous or payment of fine is not
called for.”
27. We may also take note of the statement made by the
petitioner in the Writ Petition (PIL) No. 20 of 2023
presented on 30.01.2023 which has been disposed of vide
judgment and order dated 02.05.2025. The record of the
said writ petition has been summoned by us in order to
understand the mode and manner in which repeated
public interest litigations (PILs) are being filed by the
petitioner namely Mr. Jhalabhai Revabhai Satiya
(Bharvad) claiming to be a social worker and an RTI
activist.
28. It may not be out of place to mention here that the writ
petition (WP) PIL No. 20 of 2023 was filed with the
prayers of raising an issue of illegality committed in the
Town Planning Scheme No. 63 of Village Gotri while
allotment of land Survey No. 133 to the private persons
and also regarding illegality perpetuated in the Town
Planning Scheme No. 3 of Sivasi Village for allotment of
survey No. 143 and 145 with the assertion that those plots
Page 20 of 40
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:24:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/47/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
were reserved for Socially and Economically Backward
Class people. It is pertinent to note that the Writ Petition
(PIL) No. 20 of 2023 was filed against private persons
impleaded as respondent nos. 5 to 10 raising the same
issues pertaining to declaration, execution and
implementation of Town Planning Scheme No. 63 of Gotri
Village and Town Planning Scheme No. 3 of Sivasi Village,
at Vadodara, which are subject matter of the Writ Petition
(PIL) No. 47 of 2023 presented on 11.04.2023. It is, thus,
evident that the petitioner had filed different writ petitions
at different point of time raising the issues pertaining to
declaration, execution and implementation of Town
Planning Scheme, which are specifically covered under
the provisions of Gujarat Town Planning and Urban
Development Act, 1973.
29. It may also not be out of place to note here that though in
the writ petition filed in the year 2022, the petitioner
claimed himself to be a contractor as recorded in the
judgment and order dated 08.04.2022, but within a few
months of disposal of the said petition, he became an RTI
activist and a social worker as stated in the Writ Petition
Page 21 of 40
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:24:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/47/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
(PIL) No. 20 of 2023 presented on 30.01.2023.
30. From the record of the Writ Petition (PIL) No. 20 of 2023,
we may also note that applications appended by the
petitioner therein to gather the information from the
competent authorities including the Corporation and the
State authorities, were not in the same format as has been
used in the subsequent Writ Petition (PIL) No. 47 of 2023
and Writ Petition (PIL) No. 35 of 2025, filed on 11.04.2023
and 08.04.2025; respectively.
31. The abovenoted facts make it evident that the writ
petitioner kept on improving on his modus operandi so as
to establish himself as an RTI activist and a social worker
in a concerted effort putting pressure upon the
Corporation to provide information related to the
development permissions granted to the private persons
on allotment of plots under the Town Planning Scheme.
32. At the cost of repetition, it may be noted that, though the
petitioner claimed himself to be an RTI activist, but none
of the applications moved by him as noted from three writ
petitions namely WP (PIL) No. 20 of 2023, WP (PIL) No.
Page 22 of 40
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:24:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/47/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
47 of 2023 and WP (PIL) No. 35 of 2025, were filed under
the RTI Act, which prescribes a procedure for filing of
such an application on payment of requisite fee in the
specific format.
33. We, therefore, reach at a irresistible conclusion that the
petitioner is not a public interest litigant who is espousing
the cause of the public, rather repeated writ petitions
have been filed targeting private persons specifically
developers operating in the District: Vadodara, in whose
favour development permissions have been granted for
construction of Multi-storied residential or commercial
buildings.
34. When these facts were pointed out to Mr. Mihir H.Pathak,
learned Counsel for the petitioner from the records of the
aforesaid writ petitions, he laid much stress on the
relief/prayer 12(A) in the prayer clause of Writ Petition
(PIL) No. 35 of 2025 to submit that the said prayer is
clearly in the public interest and for a public cause.
35. Having notice the said prayer, suffice it to note that the
contentions made by the petitioner have already been
Page 23 of 40
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:24:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/47/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
dealt with the forgoing paragraph of this judgment,
wherein we have noted that any issue related to the Town
Planning Scheme could have been brought either before
the Town Planning Officer or before the State Government
in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In a vague
assertion, without placing anything from the record, it is
sought to be submitted by Mr. Pathak, learned advocate
for the petitioner that the writ petitions were filed at the
stage of the Draft Town Planning Scheme, but there is no
such disclosure in any of the paragraphs of the writ
petition, which have been crafted in such a manner that
correct and complete facts cannot be discerned by us.
36. Considering the above noted facts, we are of the opinion
that the petitioner namely Mr. Jhalabhai Revabhai Satiya
(Bharvad) who claims to be an RTI Activist is an
unscrupulously litigant who is in the habit of misusing the
sanctity of the public interest litigations for ulterior
motives. The petitioner cannot but be described as a
busybody or a blackmailer. Such a habitual litigant is to be
dealt with his stern hands.
Page 24 of 40
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:24:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/47/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
37. The public interest jurisdiction has been evolved by the
Apex Court with the benevolent objectives. In Ashok
Kumar Pandey vs. State of W.B. [(2004) 3 SCC 349],
the Apex Court was dealing with the question of locus
standi of the petitioner therein to present the petition in
public interest and that whether the public interest
litigation filed under Article 32 of the Constitution was a
genuine public interest litigation. While holding that the
person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in
the proceedings of public interest litigation, will alone
have a locus standi and can approach the Court to raise
any issue of violation of the fundamental rights and
genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for
personal gain or private profit or political motive or any
oblique consideration, the Apex Court has elaborately
discussed the legal forum developed as ‘public interest
litigation’. The expression ‘public interest litigation’
defined in Strouds Judicial Dictionary and the Black’s Law
Dictionary was noted in paragraph No. 5 and 6 as under :-
“5. It is necessary to take note of the meaning of
expression ‘public interest litigation’. In Strouds
Judicial Dictionary, Volume 4 (IV Edition), ‘Public
Interest’ is defined thus:
Page 25 of 40
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:24:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/47/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
“Public Interest (1) a matter of public or
general interest does not mean that which is
interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of
information or amusement but that in which a
class of the community have a pecuniary
interest, or some interest by which their legal
rights or liabilities are affected.”
6. In Black’s Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), “public
interest” is defined as follows :
“Public Interest-Something in which the
public, the community at large, has some
pecuniary interest, or some interest by which
their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It
does not mean anything so narrow as mere
curiosity, or as the interests of the particulars
localities, which may be affected by the
matters in question. Interest shared by
citizens generally in affairs of local, State or
national Government.”
38. It was noted that in Janata Dal vs. H.S.Chowdhary
[(1992) 4 SCC 305], the Apex Court considered the
scope of the public interest litigation and it was held :-
“The expression ‘PIL’ means a legal action initiated
in a court of law for the enforcement of public
interest or general interest in which the public or a
class of the community have pecuniary interest or
some interest by which their legal rights or
liabilities are affected.”
39. The Apex Court has further emphasized therein that the
requirement of locus standi of a party to a litigation, is
mandatory, because the legal capacity of the party to
Page 26 of 40
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:24:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/47/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
any litigation where in private or public action in
relation to any specific remedy sought for has to be
primarily ascertained at the threshold. A word of caution
has further been added by stating that in this newly
developed doctrine of ‘Public Interest Litigation’ a note
of severe warning and a red-alert is sounded in a chain
of notable decisions with all emphasis that the Courts
should not allow its process to be abused by a mere
busybody or a meddlesome interloper or wayfarer or
officious intervened without any interest or concern
except for personal gain or private profit or other
oblique considerations. It was further held in paragraph
No. 109 in Janata Dal (supra), as quoted in paragraph
No.10 of Ashok Kumar Pandey (supra), as under :
“10. In subsequent paras of the said judgment, it
was observed as follows :
109. It is thus clear that only a person acting bona
fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding
of PIL will alone have as locus standi and can
approach the Court to wipe out the tears of the
poor and needy, suffering from violation of their
fundamental rights, but not a person for personal
gain or private profit or political motive or any
oblique consideration. Similarly a vexatious
petition under the colour of PIL, brought before the
Court for vindicating any personal grievance,
deserves rejection at the threshold”.
Page 27 of 40
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:24:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/47/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
40. Further observations made by the Apex Court in
paragraph No. 11, 12 and 13 are relevant to be
extracted hereinunder :-
“11. It is depressing to note that on account of such
trumpery proceedings initiated before the courts,
innumerable days are wasted, which time
otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of
cases of genuine litigants. Though we spare no
efforts in fostering and developing the laudable
concept of PIL and extending our long arm of
sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed
and the needy whose fundamental rights are
infringed and violated and whose grievances go
unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet we
cannot avoid but express our opinion that while
genuine litigants with legitimate grievances
relating to civil matters involving properties worth
hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases
in which persons sentenced to death and facing the
gallows under untold agony, persons sentenced to
life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for
long years, persons suffering from undue delay in
service matters — government or private, persons
awaiting the disposal of cases wherein huge
amounts of public revenue or unauthorized
collection of tax amounts are locked up, detenus
expecting their release from the detention orders
etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue
for years with the fond hope of getting into the
courts and having their grievances redressed, the
busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or
officious interveners having absolutely no public
interest except for personal gain or private profit
either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for
any other extraneous motivation or for the glare of
publicity break the queue muffling their faces by
wearing the mask of public interest litigation and
get into the courts by filing vexatious and frivolousPage 28 of 40
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:24:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/WPPIL/47/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable
time of the courts and as a result of which the
queue standing outside the doors of the court
never moves, which piquant situation creates
frustration in the minds of genuine litigants and
resultantly, they lose faith in the administration of
our judicial system.
12. Public 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 citizens. The attractive
brand name of public interest litigation should not
be used for suspicious products of mischief. It
should be aimed at redressal of genuine public
wrong or public injury and not publicity-oriented or
founded on personal vendetta. As indicated above,
court must be careful to see that a body of persons
or a member of the public, who approaches the
court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain
or private motive or political motivation or other
oblique consideration. The court must not allow its
process to be abused for oblique considerations.
Some persons with vested interest indulge in the
pastime of meddling with judicial process either by
force of habit or from improper motives. Often they
are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap
popularity. The petitions of such busybodies
deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the
threshold, and in appropriate cases, with
exemplary costs.
13. The Council for Public Interest Law set up by
the Ford Foundation in USA defined “public
interest litigation” in its Report of Public Interest
Law, USA, 1976 as follows:
“Public interest law is the name that has
recently been given to efforts that providePage 29 of 40
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:24:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/WPPIL/47/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
legal representation to previously
unrepresented groups and interests. Such
efforts have been undertaken in the
recognition that ordinary marketplace for
legal services fails to provide such services to
significant segments of the population and to
significant interests. Such groups and
interests include the proper
environmentalists, consumers, racial and
ethnic minorities and others.”
41. Having said that the Apex Court has emphasized that the
public 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 veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested
interest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking. It was,
thus, held that the Court must not allow its process to be
abused for oblique consideration and such petitions of
such busybodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at
the threshold with exemplary cost.
42. It was further directed that the Court has to be satisfied
about :-
(a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima
facie correctness or nature of information given by
him; (c) the information being not vague and
indefinite. The information should show gravity and
seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance
between two conflicting interests; (i) nobody shouldPage 30 of 40
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:24:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/WPPIL/47/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless
allegations besmirching the character of others;
and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid
mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique
motives, justifiable executive actions.
43. The further observations in paragraph Nos. 15 and 16 of
the decision are also relevant to be extracted
hereinbelow :-
“15. Courts must do justice by promotion of good
faith, and prevent law from crafty invasions. Courts
must maintain the social balance by interfering
where necessary for the sake of justice and refuse
to interfere where it is against the social interest
and public good. (See State of Maharashtra v.
Prabhu [(1994) 2 SCC 481 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 676 :
(1994) 27 ATC 116] and A.P. State Financial Corpn.
v. Gar Re-Rolling Mills [(1994) 2 SCC 647 : AIR
1994 SC 2151] .) No litigant has a right to
unlimited draught on the court time and public
money in order to get his affairs settled in the
manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should
not be misused as a licence to file misconceived
and frivolous petitions. [See Buddhi Kota Subbarao
(Dr) v. K. Parasaran [(1996) 5 SCC 530 : 1996 SCC
(Cri) 1038 : JT (1996) 7 SC 265] .] Today
peoplerush to courts to file cases in profusion
under this attractive name of public interest. They
must inspire confidence in courts and among the
public.
16. As noted supra, a time has come to weed out
the petitions, which though titled as public interest
litigations are in essence something else. It is
shocking to note that courts are flooded with a
large number of so-called public interest litigations
where even a minuscule percentage can
legitimately be called public interest litigations.
Though the parameters of public interest litigation
Page 31 of 40
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:24:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/47/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
have been indicated by this Court in a large
number of cases, yet unmindful of the real
intentions and objectives, courts are entertaining
such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time
which, as noted above, could be otherwise utilized
for disposal of genuine cases. Though in Duryodhan
Sahu (Dr) v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra [(1998) 7 SCC
273 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1802 : AIR 1999 SC 114]
this Court held that in service matters PILs should
not be entertained, the inflow of so-called PILs
involving service matters continues unabated in the
courts and strangely are entertained. The least the
High Courts could do is to throw them out on the
basis of the said decision. The other interesting
aspect is that in the PILs, official documents are
being annexed without even indicating as to how
the petitioner came to possess them. In one case, it
was noticed that an interesting answer was given
as to its possession. It was stated that a packet was
lying on the road and when out of curiosity the
petitioner opened it, he found copies of the official
documents. Whenever such frivolous pleas are
taken to explain possession, the courts should do
well not only to dismiss the petitions but also to
impose exemplary costs. It would be desirable for
the courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and
dismiss them with costs as aforestated so that the
message goes in the right direction that petitions
filed with oblique motive do not have the approval
of the courts.”
44. In the context of the locus standi in the field of Public
Interest Litigation, the Apex Court has clearly stated
that relaxation of the Rule of locus standi in the field of
Public Interest Litigation does not give any right to
busybody or meddlesome interloper to approach the
Court under the guise of a public interest litigation. The
Page 32 of 40
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:24:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/47/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
Court must be careful to see that the member of the
public who approaches the Courts is acting bona fide
and not for personal gain or private profit or other
oblique considerations. The court must not allow its
process to be abused by anyone for such objectives. The
decision in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai vs. Roshan
Kumar [(1976) 1 SCC 671] was noted in the context of
locus standi to apply for writ of certiorari, wherein it
was held that the petitions of the busybodies should be
rejected at the threshold. Para 22 of the decision of the
Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Pandey (supra) is
extracted hereinunder :-
“22. Sarkaria, J. in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v.
Roshan Kumar [(1976) 1 SCC 671] expressed his
view that the application of a busybody should be
rejected at the threshold in the following terms :
(SCC p. 683, para 37) “37. It will be seen that in
the context of locus standi to apply for a writ of
certiorari, an applicant may ordinarily fall in any of
these categories : (i) ‘person aggrieved’; (ii)
‘stranger’; (iii) busybody or meddlesome interloper.
Persons in the last category are easily
distinguishable from those coming under the first
two categories. Such persons interfere in things
which do not concern them. They masquerade as
crusaders for justice. They pretend to act in the
name of pro bono publico, though they have no
interest of the public or even of their own to
protect. They indulge in the pastime of meddling
with the judicial process either by force of habit orPage 33 of 40
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:24:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/WPPIL/47/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
from improper motives. Often, they are actuated by
a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity; while
the ulterior intent of some applicants in this
category, may be no more than spoking the wheels
of administration. The High Court should do well to
reject the applications of such busybodies at the
threshold.”
45. The caution reiterated by the Apex Court in Ashok
Kumar Pandey (supra) in entertaining the public
interest litigation, as noted in paragraph No.27, is a
reminder of the stated law as to how the Court should
act in a matter of entertaining the Public Interest
Litigation filed by the busybodies or by the petitioners
with a real intention of personal gain or for oblique
motive:-
“27.In the words of Bhagwati, J. (as he then was)
“the courts must be careful in entertaining public
interest litigations” or in the words of Sarkaria, J.
“the applications of the busybodies should be
rejected at the threshold itself” and as Krishna
Iyer, J. has pointed out, “the doors of the courts
should not be ajar for such vexatious litigants”.”.
46. We may also take note of the decision of the Apex Court
in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware vs. State of
Maharashtra and Others [(2005) 1 SCC 590]
wherein the writ petitioner was a lawyer, who filed the
public interest litigation raising allegations of
Page 34 of 40
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:24:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/47/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
unauthorised constructions, whereas the petitioner had
himself resorted to blackmailing the respondents and
was caught red handed accepting blackmailing money.
The Apex Court has noted the aspects highlighted in
Ashok Kumar Pandey (supra) therein.
47. We may further note the Rules made by the High Court
of Gujarat regulating the practice and procedure of
Public interest litigation. These Rules are known as “the
High Court of Gujarat (Practice and Procedure for Public
Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010. The definition of Public
interest litigation in Rule 2(1) is relevant to be noted
hereinunder:-
“2. Definitions – In these Rules, unless the context
otherwise requires:
(1) “Public Interest Litigation” without
limiting generality of the said expression shall
mean a litigation undertaken for the purpose
of redressing genuine, substantive or larger
public injury or public grievance or for
enforcing public duty or for vindicating public
interest but shall not include a matter
involving individual, personal or private
grievances of the petitioner or any one else.”
48. Rules 3, 3A and 4 providing the procedure and
convention of Public interest litigation are also relevant
Page 35 of 40
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:24:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/47/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
to be noted hereinunder :-
“3. A Writ Petition filed in the High Court in the
nature of Public Interest Litigation, shall as far as
possible be in Proforma – I and shall disclose –
(a) the petitioner’s social standing,
professional status and his antecedents,
particularly with respect to his credentials for
maintaining the petition in the nature of
Public Interest Litigation.
(b) nature and extent of the personal interest
of the petitioner, if any, involved in the cause.
(c) Whether the petitioner has ever faced
contempt of Court proceedings and outcome
or status of such proceedings, if any.
(d) facts constituting the cause, in
chronological order. If the Petition is based on
news report, it must be stated whether the
petitioner has taken steps to verify the facts
personally.
(e) nature of injury caused.
(f) in case the petitioner is an Organization,
the petition must be filed through an
authorized Office-bearer of the Organization
concerned, disclosing additional details of any
other Public Interest Litigation previously
filed, by such Organization with case number,
status of the case and brief statement of its
outcome if the case is finally disposed of.
(g) the petition shall contain a declaration
that the petition is filed purely in Public
Interest and not at the instance of any person
or organization other than the petitioner.
Page 36 of 40
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:24:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/47/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
(h) full details of the source from which the
costs of the 2 litigation including the lawyer’s
fees are being borne.
(i) The petition must further contain
averments as to how the public interest is
involved.
(j) that the cause involved is purely in public
intent and that there is no personal gain,
private motive or oblique motive behind filing
the Public Interest Litigation.
(k) the Constitutional or statutory provision or
administrative instruction, which has been
violated. The grounds for grant of interim
relief and the nature of urgency, if any,
involved must also be mentioned alongwith a
precise prayer-clause.
3.A The Court may impose exemplary costs or
adopt other appropriate methods to ensure curbing
of frivolous Petitions, wrongly describing them as
Public Interest Petitions filed by busy bodies for
extraneous consideration or ulterior motive.
4. A Writ Petition filed in the nature of Public
Interest Litigation shall contain a
statement/declaration by the petitioner whether to
his knowledge, issue raised was previously dealt
with or decided by the High Court and whether a
similar or identical petition was filed earlier by the
petitioner or by any other person to his knowledge,
and that he had taken all reasonable care to gather
information before making such a statement. In
case such an issue was dealt with or a similar or
identical petition was filed earlier, its status or the
result thereof must be stated.”\
49. A bare reading of the Gujarat High Court Rules indicates
that the petitioner’s social standing, professional status
Page 37 of 40
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:24:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/47/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
and his antecedents would be relevant, particularly with
respect to his credentials for maintaining a petition in
the nature of Public interest litigation. The nature and
extent of the personal interest of the petitioners involved
in the case will have to be looked into. The cause
involved must be purely in public intent and a
declaration has to be made that there is no personal
gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the
Writ petition. Frivolous petitions, wrongly described as
Public interest litigation filed for extraneous
consideration or ulterior motive may be dismissed by
imposing exemplary costs or the Court may adopt other
appropriate methods to ensure curbing of such frivolous
petition.
50. It is mandatory for a Public interest litigant to make a
declaration as to the knowledge on the issues raised and
any such statement must be made with all reasonable
care.
51. In view of the above discussion, the above referred two
writ petitions filed in the nature of Public interest
litigation are liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs
Page 38 of 40
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:24:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/47/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
of Rs.20 Lakhs (each). The total amount of Rs. 40 Lakhs
(20 + 20) shall be deposited in two equal installments
within a total period of four months from today. The first
installment shall be deposited within a period of two
months from today with the Registrar General, High
Court of Gujarat. The amount deposited shall be
forwarded to the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority,
which shall be spent in the welfare projects for women
and children in the State of Gujarat. In case of non-
deposit of any of the two installments, the proceedings
for recovery of the money as arrears of land revenue
shall be initiated against the petitioner.
52. As an abundant caution, we further provide that any
Public Interest Writ petition filed (in future) in the name
of the petitioner herein pertaining to District Vadodara
or any other districts in the State, shall be first placed
before the Registrar (Judicial) for scrutiny, and no such
petition shall be entertained by the Registry at the
instance of the present petitioner, in future. The
Registrar (Judicial) is also directed to make an inquiry as
to whether any other Writ petition in the nature of the
Page 39 of 40
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:24:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/WPPIL/47/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
Public interest litigation filed by the petitioner herein is
pending and, if so, the same shall be listed before this
Hon’ble Court at the earliest along with his specific
report.
53. With the above directions, the above writ petitions stand
dismissed with costs stated above.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(D.N.RAY,J)
VARSHA DESAI
Page 40 of 40
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:24:23 IST 2025