Calcutta High Court
Santosh Kumar Pathak vs Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors on 21 November, 2008
Author: Sanjib Banerjee
Bench: Surinder Singh Nijjar, Sanjib Banerjee
WP No. 247 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Original Side
SANTOSH KUMAR PATHAK
Versus
KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.
For Petitioner : Mr. Jayanta Banerjee, Advocate
For Defendant No.6 : Mr. S.K.Kapoor, Sr.Advocate with
Mr. J.Kar and
Mr. D.Mitra, Advocates
For Repondent-KMC Authorities : Mr. L.C.Behani, Sr.Advocate
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble CHIEF JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR
AND The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 21st November, 2008.
THE COURT : This writ petition was initially filed in the Original Side Writ Jurisdiction of this Court. At the time of hearing of the writ petition, an objection was taken that no cause of action had acrued in favour of the writ petitioner to file the writ petition as he had no concern with the building in question being No.20A, N.S.Road, Kolkata
- 700 001. Faced with this situation, a prayer was made before the Court that the writ petition be treated as a Public Interest Litigation. Consequently the matter has been placed before this Bench hearing Public Interest Litigations. 2
We have serious reservation as to whether the writ petition can be treated as a public interest litigation, after the same was conceived and presented before the Court in the ordinary writ jurisdiction. That apart, Mr. Behani learned counsel appearing for the KMC authorities points out that the writ petitioner is a serving Councillor of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and whatever grievances he had with regard to any building permission could well be ventilated before the appropriate authorities of Kolkata Municipal Corporation. Mr. Kapoor has vehemently argued that the writ petition is in fact filed with ulterior motive. It is not a bona fide attempt for expressing any genuine grievance of general public. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. Reported in (2005) 1 SCC 590 that Courts must be cautious while entertaining the writ petitions under the heading "Public Interest Litigation" and may admit an application only upon being satisfied that the writ petition has been moved bonafide and has not been filed for any ulterior or extraneous motives and/or considerations. In the aforementioned case the Supreme Court held that a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the 3 proceeding of public interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration.
Keeping in view the observations as quoted above, we are satisfied that the present writ petition has not been moved bona fide. The writ petition is dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.1000/- to be payable by the writ petitioner to the State Legal Aid Services Authority.
Urgent photostat certified copies of this order be made available to the parties upon compliance with usual formalities.
( SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, C.J.) ( SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) Rsg.