Case title: Smt. Hemika & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Case no.: D.B. Civil (PIL) Writ Petition No. 15649/2022
Decided on: 20.02.2024.
Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Pankaj Bhandari, Hon’ble Justice nn
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The case involves petitioners who filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in 2022 seeking to stop heavy blasting activities and machinery near residential areas. The petitioners were accused of concealing material facts, including ongoing civil litigation involving them and their relatives. The Court emphasized the importance of genuine public interest litigation and warned against frivolous petitions and false statements. The petitioners were found to have encroached on government land and raised constructions in a mining lease area. Due to the lack of truthful disclosure and concealment of relevant facts, the PIL was dismissed by the Court.
LEGAL PRINCIPLES:
Article 32 of the Constitution, which deals with the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Article 226 of the Constitution, which deals with the extraordinary jurisdiction of High Courts.
Precedents set by previous court cases such as “Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.” and “K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Limited & Ors.” which emphasize the importance of genuine public interest litigation and the consequences of concealing facts or filing frivolous petitions.
Environmental laws and regulations related to mining activities and pollution control, as mentioned in the case regarding the grant of mining leases and compliance with environmental clearances.
APPELLANTS CONTENTION:
The petitioners sought to remove the name of an illiterate petitioner (Petitioner No.5) from the PIL, claiming that he was unaware of the compromise in a previous suit involving villagers. The appellants argued that Respondent No.8 attempted to start mining in the disputed area, leading to opposition from villagers and damage to nearby buildings due to blasting activities. Allegations were made that FIRs were lodged against relatives of the petitioners, which the petitioners allegedly concealed in their filings. The appellants contended that mining activities had not commenced in the mining lease area, contrary to the claims made by the petitioners.
The appellants emphasized that mining leases were granted with Pollution Control Board approval and that halting mining activities resulted in revenue loss to the exchequer.
RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:
The respondents argued that the petitioners did not come forth with clean hands before the court and concealed material facts and misrepresented information in their PIL.
It was contended that the petitioners had encroached upon government land within the mining lease area and had constructed buildings, as reported by the Court Commissioner.
The respondents highlighted that the petitioners failed to disclose relevant facts, such as ongoing civil suits involving them and their relatives, and the lack of mining activities in the area for the past two years.
The respondents emphasized the importance of truthful disclosure in PIL cases and warned against misleading the court or suppressing material facts. It was asserted that the petitioners’ allegations of damage due to mining activities were inaccurate, as confirmed by the Court Commissioner’s report indicating the presence of fully grown trees and plants in the mining lease area.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:
The Court in the case underscored the fundamental principle that parties approaching the court must do so with clean hands, disclosing all material facts, and seeking appropriate relief without concealing or suppressing information. Emphasizing the importance of transparency and honesty in legal proceedings, the Court warned against abusing the legal process for personal gain, private motives, or oblique considerations. The Court highlighted the significance of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) being used judiciously to deliver social justice and not for mischief or vested interests, urging parties to act in the genuine interest of the public.
Furthermore, the Court referenced legal precedents that stressed the need for PIL to be approached with care and circumspection, ensuring that it serves its intended purpose effectively. In this case, the Court observed that the petitioners had failed to provide all relevant facts, including ongoing civil litigation involving them and the absence of mining activities in the area. Due to the lack of truthful disclosure and the concealment of material facts by the petitioners, the Court dismissed the PIL and imposed exemplary costs as a deterrent against filing frivolous petitions with oblique motives.
The judgment served as a reminder of the principles of transparency, honesty, and genuine public interest that should underpin PIL cases. By dismissing the petition and imposing costs, the Court aimed to uphold the integrity of the legal system, deter unscrupulous litigants from misusing the legal process, and ensure that PIL fulfils its intended purpose of promoting public interest and social justice. The ruling sought to maintain the credibility of the judiciary and uphold the standards of ethical conduct in legal proceedings.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement reviewed by – Ayush Shrivastava
Click here to read the full judgement.
