Read Time: 05 minutes

A bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Amit Bansal of the Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking demolition of alleged illegal constructions in North Delhi's Sarai Rohilla. 

The court said that the said petition was in fact merely "a blackmailing type of litigation", a "so-called PIL" because the petitioner's only source of information regarding the alleged illegality of the constructions was "persons who are living in surroundings of such constructions".

Noting that "the aforesaid answer is an evasive answer," and that infact the "petitioner has no knowledge at all about the legality or otherwise of the construction in question", the court said that the petitioner had "filed this petition without proper homework and only on being informed by some persons who are moving on road."

Stating that PILs cannot be filed in this fashion, without due homework, the court dismissed the petition, imposing a cost of Rs. 50,000 to be paid by the petitioner to the Delhi Legal Services Authority (DLSA).

The petition inter alia sought:

1. Demolition of the alleged illegal and unauthorized construction
2. Booking of the un-booked alleged illegal and unauthorized construction
3. Initiation of enquiry/ disciplinary/ legal action against the corrupt officials of North Delhi Municipal Corporation who are allegedly protecting illegal or unauthorized encroachment 

Refusing to grant any of the prayers or to even entertain the writ, the court said, "When we raised a question to the learned counsel for the Petitioner that whether Petitioner has ever obtained any information about the aforesaid 13 buildings under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the answer is in the negative. Thus, this Petitioner has not tried to get any information about the maps of the construction, etc. from the concerned Respondent authorities or from any competent authority."

The court also pointed out that "whenever any superstructure is to be demolished, even if it is illegal in nature, the Petitioner ought to have joined owners / occupiers of the superstructure as a party Respondent. No construction can be demolished without hearing the owners / occupiers of the superstructure."

Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Standing Counsel for DDA & Mr. Raghav Sabharwal, Advocate appeared for for Respondent No. 1.

Case Title: Fight for Right Social Welfare Society v The Vice Chairman Delhi Development Authority Cum Chairperson Special Task Force and Anr.