Despite Suppression of Facts, Court Rules in Favor of Public Interest, Imposes Costs on Petitioner
In a significant judgment, the Calcutta High Court has upheld the maintainability of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Sri Sandip Pramanik, challenging alleged illegal construction within 500 meters of the banks of the river Hooghly. The Division Bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen, ruled that the PIL is maintainable despite suppressions of material facts by the petitioner, emphasizing the substantial public interest involved.
The PIL alleged violations of environmental regulations and coastal zone restrictions by the respondent authorities, including the Union of India and the Howrah Municipal Corporation. It contended that the construction activities could disturb the ecological balance in the region.
During the proceedings, the court scrutinized the credentials of the petitioner, revealing his involvement in criminal cases and his interests in real estate. The respondents argued that these factors undermined the bona fide nature of the PIL, suggesting that the petitioner filed the PIL for personal gain rather than public interest.
However, the court, referencing guidelines from the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, held that the suppression of facts and personal interests does not automatically disqualify a PIL if substantial public interest is demonstrated. The judgment emphasized that the court's role is to encourage genuine PILs while curbing those filed for extraneous considerations.
The court acknowledged the petitioner’s failure to disclose his criminal antecedents but concluded that the omission did not impact the public interest aspect of the case. In light of the petitioner’s conduct, the court imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 to be deposited with the State Legal Service Authority, West Bengal, under the Victim Compensation Scheme.
The judgment highlights the judiciary's delicate balance in handling PILs, ensuring that public interest remains paramount while discouraging frivolous petitions. The court ordered the matter to be listed for hearing in February 2026, signaling further deliberations on the environmental and regulatory compliance issues.
The outcome serves as a reminder of the importance of transparency and bona fide intentions in public interest litigation, reinforcing the judiciary's commitment to safeguarding ecological and legal norms.
Bottom Line:
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) - Maintainability of a PIL requires the court to verify the credentials and bona fides of the petitioner. Suppression of material facts, such as pendency of criminal cases or personal interest, may cast doubt on the petitioner's motives but does not automatically bar maintainability if substantial public interest is involved.
Statutory provision(s): Coastal Regulation Zone Notification 1996, Coastal Regulation Zone Notification 2019, Guidelines from State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, Indian Penal Code, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Sri Sandip Pramanik v. Union of India, (Calcutta)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2824219
