1 (5)PIL.16.2011.sxw mnm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.16 OF 2011 Hemant Baburao Patil ...Petitioner Vs. Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. R.N. Kachve, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. Ravi Kadam, Advocate General with Mr. D.A. Nalawade, Government Pleader with Ms. Anuparita Nalawade, Advocate for Respondents 4 & 5 Mr. A.N. Valvi, Under Secretary & Dy. Chief Election Officer, Maharashtra State present for Respondent No.3 CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. Date : 22nd September 2011. P.C. 1. In this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India purporting to be public interest litigation, the Petitioner has prayed for writ, order or direction to Respondent No.3 Election Commissioner of India to investigate into the matter of filing of nomination form by the Respondent No.5 for election to the Rajya Sabha in the year 2009. 2. The Petition is based on the premise that while filing the nomination form in the said election Respondent No.5 did not disclose in the declaration of assets made on affidavit the flat in Venus Bhakti Park, Wadala (East), 2 (5)PIL.16.2011.sxw Mumbai admeasuring 1032 sq. ft. 3. The Petitioner has made the above allegation only on the basis of the information which the petitioner claims to have gathered from the website alled “myneta.info” exhibit-A to the Petition. Even on perusal of the details of immovable assets of Respondent No.5 as disclosed on the said website indicates that in the column of “houses”, the Respondent No.5 had disclosed 3 properties i.e.: “1. Rs. 40 lakhs Kaveri Apartment, Alaknanda, New Delhi-09. 140 sq. mtrs. 2. Rs. 20 lakhs 1032 sq. ft. and 3. Rs. 50 lakhs 5992 sq. ft.” The petitioner has chosen to ignore the fact that there was declaration of the 3 houses, merely because the information on website “myneta.info” was not complete and did not give detailed description of the properties particularly flat admeasuring 1032 sq. ft,. 4. The learned Advocate General appearing for the Respondent No.5 has opposed the petition and pointed out from the affidavit in reply of the Respondent No.5 filed before this Court as well as the affidavit filed before the Election Commission on 14th March 2008 that Respondent No.5 had disclosed all the three flats/houses in his declaration of assets filed along with the nomination form for election to Rajya Sabha in the year 2009. The learned Advocate General has also submitted that without verifying this fact the petitioner has made reckless allegations of alleged commission of offence by Respondent No.5. 3 (5)PIL.16.2011.sxw 5. In the affidavit in reply filed by the Respondent No.5, the Respondent No. 5 has not only pointed out the fact that the declaration about the flat in Venus Bhakti Park, Wadala (East), Mumbai admeasuring 1032 sq. ft. was made in the nomination, but a Photostat copy of the affidavit dated 14th March 2008 filed before the Election Commission is also placed on record at Exhibit-2. In the declaration of immovable properties against the column “houses” Respondent No.5 has clearly made a declaration of all the 3 houses/apartments being: “1. Kaveri Apartment, Alaknanda, New Delhi-09. Admeasuring 140 sq. mtrs. valued at Rs.40 lakhs. 2. Flat in Venus Bhakti Park, Wadala (East), Mumbai, admeasuring 1032 sq. ft. valued at Rs.20 lakhs and 3. Ancestral house, Patan Colony, Karad, Dist: Satara admeasuring 5992 sq. ft. valued at Rs.50 lakhs.” 6. On perusal of the above said affidavit of which we have seen the original, as shown from the record of the Election Commission, there is no scope for any doubt that Respondent No.5 had declared and disclosed all the three immovable properties in the column of houses filed along with the nomination form for election to Rajya Sabha. The original affidavit shown to the Court has been returned to the Respondent No.3 Election Commission. 7. The affidavit in reply of the Respondent No.5 was served on the petitioner on 20th July 2009. Even after service of the affidavit in reply showing the above facts clearly, the petitioner sought to continue to prosecute this Petition. 8. We are of the view of the Petition has been filed without any sense of responsibility and one of oblique motive. 4 (5)PIL.16.2011.sxw 9. We take a serious view of the manner in which the petitioner has made false and reckless allegations against the Respondent No.5 without any basis whatsoever and even contrary to whatever information was available with the petitioner which the petitioner himself had gathered from the website “myneta.info”. We, therefore, find that this Petition purporting to be public interest litigation has been filed without any sense of responsibility. 10.The Petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed summarily. The Petition is accordingly dismissed for the reasons already indicated herein above. 11.The petitioner also deserves to be saddled with costs. In view of the above, the Petition is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.25000/- which shall be paid by the petitioner to the Respondent No.5 within one month from today. CHIEF JUSTICE ROSHAN DALVI, J.