Uttarakhand High Court
Jayendra Chand Ramola vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 2 January, 2018
Author: Lok Pal Singh
Bench: V.K. Bist, Lok Pal Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (PIL) No.172 of 2017
Jayendra Chand Ramola ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Ors. ..... Respondents
Mr. Akshya Latwal, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Chief Standing Counsel with Mrs. Prabha Naithani, Brief Holder
for the State/respondent nos.1 to 3
Mr. Ravi Bisht, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ravi Babulkar, Advocate for respondent
no.4
Coram : Hon'ble V.K. Bist, J.
Hon'ble Lok Pal Singh, J.
Hon'ble Lok Pal Singh, J. (Oral) Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:
"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to make necessary arrangements for expeditious disposal and clean the garbage area (an open land of almost 35 bighas on Dehradun Marg, near Bharat Mandir Inter College, Govind Nagar, near Ganga View Hotel, Rishikesh, District Dehradun.
ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties may be directed to chose an alternative land for dumping and disposal of the waste material and garbage of the city of Rishikesh, District Dehradun where persons and their nearby environment may not be directly affected."
2. Learned counsel appearing for the official respondents as well as respondent no.4 submits that this is the second writ petition filed for the same relief. They submit that earlier a writ petition being WPPIL 2 No.34 of 2011 was filed before this Court for the same relief, which was finally disposed of by another Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.04.2012.
3. Since, as per the above statement, earlier writ petition (PIL) filed for the same relief has been disposed of by this Court and now this writ petition has been filed for the same subject matter, without disclosing this fact that for the same subject matter, earlier a writ petition was filed and was disposed off, we are of the view that the petitioner has concealed/suppressed the material facts from this Court and has made false averment in the writ petition by stating that this is the first writ petition in the present subject matter. Suppressing and concealing material facts from the Court amounts to an attempt of committing fraud with the Court. Such type of practice should be stopped immediately. In our view, this is a deliberate attempt at the hands of the petitioner to mislead the Court. It is not the case of petitioner's counsel that petitioner had no knowledge about earlier writ petition. We see no reason to entertain this petition when order was already passed in earlier PIL which was disposed off finally. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to explain about the suppression of fact in filing the subsequent writ petition by the petitioner. In our considered view, present PIL is nothing but absolutely an abuse of process of law at the hand of the petitioners. A Three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Suraz India Trust vs. Union of India has imposed exemplary costs @ ` 25,000/- Lakh on Suraz India Trust for wasting the judicial time. While doing so, the Hon'ble Apex Court 3 observed in preceding paragraphs that extremely important matters are taken up for consideration on a daily basis, and they lag behind sometimes, because individuals who were not competent to assist this Court, insist without due cause, to be granted a prolonged hearing. Hearing is sometimes sought (as in the instant case) even in matters, which the petitioners themselves are incompetent to understand and handle. All such misadventures have to be dealt with sternly, so as to prevent abuse of judicial time.
4. In the light of aforesaid, we dismiss the writ petition and impose costs @ ` 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) on the petitioner, which shall be deposited by him within two weeks from today with the Uttarakhand High Court Bar Association Advocates Welfare Fund, failing which, the Registrar General shall send a recovery letter to the Collector Dehradun to recover the costs from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue and thereafter to send the same amount to the Registry of this Court so as to deposit the same with Advocates Welfare Fund.
(Lok Pal Singh, J.) (V.K. Bist, J.)
02.01.2018 02.01.2018
Rajni