Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Gujarat High Court

Rajeshkumar Umiyashankar Mehta vs State Of Gujarat on 7 March, 2023

Author: Nirzar S. Desai

Bench: Nirzar S. Desai

    C/SCA/2285/2023                           ORDER DATED: 07/03/2023




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2285 of 2023

==========================================================
                  RAJESHKUMAR UMIYASHANKAR MEHTA
                               Versus
                         STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. KALRAV R PATEL(7041) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI

                          Date : 07/03/2023

                           ORAL ORDER

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent no. 1 to decide the representation dated 28.09.2020 within three months or expeditiously. The representation is in respect of encroachments by the President and Committee members of the Friends Cooperative Housing Soceity, Taluka:- Savarkundala, District:- Amreli in the common plots and the lands of the aforesaid Cooperative Housing Society.

2. The petitioner claims to be an Ayurvedic Doctor and RTI Activist and who does not stay in the Friends Cooperative Society but is staying at Bhavna Society near Kabir Tekri, Savarkundla as can be seen from the cause title.

C/SCA/2285/2023 ORDER DATED: 07/03/2023

3. Learned advocate Mr. Kalrav Patel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has prayed for innocuous prayer of directing the respondent no. 1 i.e. Regional Commissioner to decide the representation of the petitioner and therefore, the same may be granted. He states that as the petitioner has observed that certain encroachment has taken place in the common plot and on the land belonging to the Friends Cooperative Housing Society, the petitioner has made representation on 28.09.2020 but the same has remained undecided and therefore, the aforesaid direction is sought.

4. At first, the direction prayed for by the petitioner looks innocuous. However, upon looking at the petition, this Court finds that the petitioner does not have any locus. Merely because the petitioner is a citizen of the same city, if the members of the society has carried out some encroachment in some society and the petitioner has pointed out about the same, it cannot be said that the petitioner has locus to question the aforesaid encroachment.

5. This Court put a query to learned advocate Mr. Patel that though the petitioner has stated in the cause title that he is an Ayurvedic Doctor and RTI Activist, what is the background of the petitioner and in the past how many RTI applications are preferred by the petitioner or any social work carried out by the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Patel had no answer for Page 2 of 5 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 13 20:33:28 IST 2023 C/SCA/2285/2023 ORDER DATED: 07/03/2023 that.

6. Further on perusal of the petition, the Court finds that except for the stating in the cause title that the petitioner is RTI activist, the petitioner has not given any background about the RTI activities carried out by him.

7. Upon perusing of the record, this Court could not find any history about past social activities or RTI activities which can be said to be in larger public interest.

8. Prima facie, it seems that the petitioner's intentions are malafide in preferring the petition. If the prayer prayed for by the petitioner is granted and the authority is directed to decide the representation, in that case there are all the chances that in future at every stage of the proceedings, the petitioner may ask the authority that he is a necessary party to be heard and therefore, he may start interfering with the affairs of the member of the Friends Cooperative Housing Society where he is not even residing. When the petitioner has no locus to question the aforesaid action and prima facie when the Court is of the view that if some encroachment is made on the common plot of the Society, the same would be a subject matter within the purview of Board of Nominees as the encroachment is done by the members of society which is a cooperative housing Society and therefore, any dispute related to that could Page 3 of 5 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 13 20:33:28 IST 2023 C/SCA/2285/2023 ORDER DATED: 07/03/2023 be adjudicated only by the Board of nominees and therefore, if this petition is entertained and any direction is issued, in that case, the procedure envisaged under the law that such disputes would be adjudicated by the Board of Nominees or any other appropriate forum would be sidelined and the petitioner will get a leverage to interfere with the lives of the persons who even do not know who the petitioner is.

9. The petitioner is a self pro-claimed RTI activist without there being any background or without there being any mention about social services that the petitioner has carried out. The petitioner though claims to be an Ayurvedic Doctor, the petitioner has not disclosed any reason in the petition as to why he is seeking action against the only handful of persons if the petitioner is so concerned about the encroachment, the petitioner could have filed a Public Interest Litigation also but this selective approach of the petitioner raise doubt about the actual intention of the petitioner.

10. This Court firmly believes that if this petition is entertained, the authority is directed to consider the representation made by the petitioner, it will give leverage to the petitioner to interfere with the lives of those persons who are leaving happily and from the pleadings it seems that if any of the members of the society has done any encroachment on the common plot of society, in that case, it is the members of Page 4 of 5 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 13 20:33:28 IST 2023 C/SCA/2285/2023 ORDER DATED: 07/03/2023 the society who can raise voice against them. Even local authority is also competent enough to initiate action on noticing any such irregularities or encroachment. For that the petitioner's selective social activism is not required. This Court is of the view that this petition is nothing but abuse and misuse of process of law and if any such petition is entertained that will encourage such busy body like petitioner to file more such frivolous petitions and therefore, petition is required to be dismissed with the costs. Accordingly this petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/-.

(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) VARSHA DESAI Page 5 of 5 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 13 20:33:28 IST 2023