In a significant ruling emphasizing transparency in public interest litigation, the Calcutta High Court has imposed a hefty fine of Rs 50,000 on a petitioner for failing to disclose six pending criminal cases against him. The case involves a PIL alleging illegal construction on the banks of the Hooghly river.
Court's Stern Message on Approaching with Clean Hands
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen delivered the order on Wednesday. The bench strongly observed that when a petitioner approaches the court for the greater interest of society, the minimum expectation is that they must come with clean hands. The court highlighted that the writ jurisdiction is based on equity and is highly prerogative and discretionary in nature.
The bench stated, "When the writ petitioner approaches this court for the greater interest of society, the minimum expectation is that the writ petitioner must approach with clean hands." This principle is considered fundamental when invoking the court's extraordinary jurisdiction.
Details of the PIL and the Litigant's Defence
The PIL was filed by Sandip Pramanik, a resident of Garia, against PS Group Realty Private Limited. He contested the construction of a 45-storey building on the Hooghly banks, arguing it violated the Coastal Zone Management Plan framed by the Ministry of Environment and Forest. Pramanik's contention was that a 1996 notification makes the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) applicable up to 500 metres along the Hooghly banks, except in the Haldia area where it is reduced to 100 metres.
During proceedings, it emerged that Pramanik had not disclosed six First Information Reports (FIRs) pending against him. The charges in these cases include:
- Cheating
- Mischief
- Criminal Trespass
- Forgery
The court noted that these charges prima facie raised questions about the litigant's credibility. However, it also clarified that none of these pending cases had any direct "bearing" on the subject matter of the PIL.
Pramanik's counsel argued that his client had "unknowingly" omitted the information, under the impression that the criminal cases were not connected to the PIL. He urged the court for leniency, emphasizing that Pramanik had approached the court for a larger public cause concerning environmental protection.
Opposition's Arguments and the Court's Final Order
Representing the realty group, SN Mookherjee opposed the PIL's maintainability on several grounds. He pointed out Pramanik's own involvement in the real estate business, the six undisclosed FIRs, and the fact that Pramanik, a Garia resident, was filing a PIL for an area in Hooghly far from his own locality.
Despite the objections and the imposed cost, the division bench held the PIL to be maintainable. The court scheduled the next hearing for February 9. It directed Pramanik to deposit the Rs 50,000 cost with the State Legal Service Authority (SLSA) within 15 working days.
The order further specified that the member secretary of the SLSA will credit this sum to the account designated for the "Victim Compensation Scheme." This ensures the penalty serves a broader social purpose.
This ruling serves as a clear reminder of the high standards of disclosure and bona fide conduct expected from individuals who approach courts through the public interest litigation route, even when the cause itself is deemed worthy of judicial scrutiny.
