1 pil253.09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 253 OF 2009 Shri Santosh Bhagwan More & Anr. ...Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. N.V. Gangal for the Petitioners. Ms. S.S. Bhende, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. U.P. Warunjikar for Respondent No.5. Mr. Rajesh S. Datar for Respondent No.3. CORAM : P.B. MAJMUDAR AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 23RD FEBRUARY, 2011. P.C. 1. The grievance of the petitioners in this PIL is in respect of illegal/unauthorized constructions within the limits of Dahanu Municipal Council. The learned Counsel for the petitioners states that since there are illegal construction in Dahanu Municipal Council area, appropriate steps should be taken by the Municipal Council to remove the illegal/unauthorized construction carried out with the blessings of the then Officers of the Council and the Council should submit its compliance report as to what action they have taken as per the earlier orders passed by this Court from time to time. 2 pil253.09.sxw 2. In this connection it is required to be noted that the Division Bench of this Court on 22nd April, 2010 in paras 2 to 5 observed as follows: "2. In pursuance of the notice issued by this Court, affidavit in reply has been filed by the Chief Officer of the Dahanu Municipal Council. Paragraph 6 of the said affidavit in reply reads as under : "I say that the Respondent No.4, the then Chief Officer of the Respondent No.3, Council has filed Affidavit-in-reply in the PIL No.1 of 2007, 35/2007 and 36/2007 on 13-4-2009 wherein she has pointed out that of approximately 1107 unauthorized constructions, action has been taken in respect of 951 structures and on the applications for regularization, 920 structures were regularized 29 encroachments were removed from the Government land and 2 from private land." 3. The aforesaid contents of the affidavit in reply clearly reveals that several illegal constructions have been regularized by the Chief Officer of the Dahanu Municipal Council. Prima facie, it appears that it would not be proper to regularize all such illegal constructions as it would not be in the interest of the society to regularize such illegal constructions. 4. In the circumstances, the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Maharashtra and the Director, Town Planning, Maharashtra State, Pune shall personally look into all these cases and shall ascertain whether any undue favour was shown to the person whose constructions have been regularized. 5. It is directed that the Chief Officer of the Dahanu Municipal Council shall take appropriate action against the persons who have put up illegal constructions so that no further illegal constructions are put up within the limits of the Dahanu Municipal Council." 3. Subsequently by order dated 17th June, 2010 the Division Bench of this Court observed as under :- 3 pil253.09.sxw "The present Chief Officer and deponent of the affidavit dated 14th June 2010 is present in Court and Mr. Savagave appearing for Council, upon taking instructions from her makes a statement that within a period of three months from today, action will be taken against all unauthorized constructions within the limits of Dahanu Municipal Council, including the 920 structures mentioned in the report, copies of which are annexed as Exh.4 to this affidavit. We accept this statement, made on instructions, as undertaking to this Court." 4. The learned Counsel for the Council after taking instructions from Mr. Vaibha Aware, Chief Officer of Dahanu Municipal Council, who is present in Court today states that action has already been taken. Various notices have also been issued against the persons who have carried out unauthorized constructions and by this time 25 structures have already been removed and Council is in the process of taking further action for which notices have been issued. 5. During the Course of hearing of this petition on behalf of Respondent No.5.a certified copy of the report from the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Dahanu Division dated 23rd February, 2010 has been placed on record. As per the said police report, the petitioner No.1 Santosh Bhagwan More, who has shown his business as 'social work' in the title is subjected to various criminal proceedings. During the course of hearing, Respondent No.5 who has been subsequently added in this petition has also placed on record the information which he has received under the RTI Act and as per the same the petitioner No.1 is facing externment proceedings. The report of the police officer as well as information received by Respondent No.5 are taken on record and are marked at Exh. "A" and "B" for identification. The 4 pil253.09.sxw learned Counsel for the petitioner No.1 submits that the petitioner No.1 may have a criminal record, but that itself is not a ground to reject his petition. Ultimately the Court is required to consider as to whether the illegal constructions have been carried out by various people in the town. It is required to be noted that though in the title of the petition the business of the petitioner No.1 is shown as social work, he is engaged in the business of construction. 6. In our view, when a person comes to the Court by way of public interest litigation, the Court can entertain the said PIL provided the Court is satisfied that such person is having an unblemished character and his credentials are not of any doubt. The object of entertaining PIL is only to find out whether the grievance raised is genuine one or not and whether a person having good character and goodwill in the society is genuine or not. A person is facing criminal proceedings including externment proceeding, in our view, cannot be said to be a person coming in the category, which we have stated above. The confidence of the Court in relying upon the person is shaken, if such persons who are facing several criminal proceedings are trying to agitate public cause by way of PIL. It is well established proposition of law that PIL should not be remotely be in nature of personal grievance or of personal nature. In our view, it would not be safe to entertain such PIL at the instance of this Petitioner No.1 who is subjected to criminal and externment proceedings. The business of the petitioners, which is shown as social work, can never be said to be a business at all. Under the guise of social work if in a given case, petitioners are indulging in the business of self interest and blackmail others, the Court should not entertain such PIL at the in instance of such person. If a person approaches 5 pil253.09.sxw the Court is not having unblemished character, he may try to take advantage of filing PILor by trying to settle the dispute with the concerned respondents. Entertaining the PIL filed by such persons when the character of such persons is doubtful would not be proper. While entertaining the PIL, the Court is required to see as to whether the person is approaching the Court with clean hands with a view to assist the society. A PIL filed is not even remotely concerned with personal interest or for personal gain in any manner. In a given case if it is filed for some relief which are in the interest of society as a whole, the Court should entertain such PIL. Considering the material on record, in our view, it is not a case in which this Court should entertain the PIL at the instance of petitioner No.1. It is no doubt true that in the instant case some interim orders have been passed and the learned Counsel for the Council stated that necessary steps have been taken. We expect that the respondent Council to act in accordance with law and to see that implementation of interim orders are carried out without fail. If any genuine person files any PIL, the Courts may examine this aspect. This Court would not like to keep the PIL pending further at the instance of petitioner No.1, in view of the statement by the learned Counsel for the Council. We accept the statement made by the learned Counsel for the Council before the Court that the Council will implement the interim order passed by this Court and monitor the aspect of illegal construction in the Dahanu Municipal Council area scrupulously and shall act accordingly. 7. Subject to what is stated above we dispose of this petition. The Council will not remain inactive in taking action against every person in respect of illegal constructions. Statement made by the learned Counsel for the Council which is already recorded is treated as an oral undertaking 6 pil253.09.sxw given by the Chief Officer, who is personally present before the Court. Council shall act on the basis of the aforesaid statement. Suffice it to say that this Court would not like to keep the PIL pending in view of fact that the PIL is filed by a person who is subjected to criminal and externment proceedings. It is required to be noted that the petitioners have not even disclosed in the petition that petitioner No.1 is subjected to criminal cases which are pending. Subject to what is stated above, petition is disposed of. In view of the above notice is discharged. 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in case the petitioner No.1 is acquitted by the competent Court, he may be allowed to file fresh PIL on the same cause of action. We express no opinion at this stage in this regard. ( A.A. SAYED, J. ) (P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.)