Delhi HC Directs CBI Investigation into Repeated PILs on Unauthorized Constructions.

NEW DELHI: In a cautionary move aimed at litigants and lawyers who use Public Interest Litigations (PILs) concerning unauthorized construction as a bargaining tool, the Delhi High Court has ordered a CBI probe into one such case.

A bench consisting of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela involved the CBI after encountering a law student who had filed 42 petitions against illegal construction. Still, fewer than half of these petitions were eventually listed for a hearing in court.

The bench recently took notice of an allegation made by the counsel for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) that the petitioner, Rahul Kumar, “had perfected the ‘art of exploiting’ respondents by filing Public Interest Litigations” related to unauthorized constructions.

The MCD highlighted that Kumar frequently filed petitions with the court registry merely to show that legal action had been initiated, but ensured that they were not listed for court hearings.

The civic agency emphasized that Kumar had been filing separate writ petitions for individual properties within the same locality, claiming he had no personal interest in the litigation and that the petitions were not driven by self-gain or the gain of any other person, institution, or body, with no motive other than the public interest.

Despite these claims, in most of the cases, neither Kumar nor his counsel appeared for the hearings, or they failed to get the majority of the cases listed after serving advance notice of the petitions to the MCD and/or the private respondents.

The court had earlier requested details from its registry about the number of petitions Kumar had filed and their statuses. Upon verification, the bench was informed that a total of 42 petitions were filed, out of which only 17 were listed in court, while the remaining 25 were not listed.

The court further found that in the cases listed for hearing, neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared on several dates, leading to some cases being disposed of either based on reports submitted by the MCD or with directions to approach the Special Task Force.

“In these circumstances, the apprehensions raised by the respondent/MCD cannot be overlooked. To rule out any apprehension, this court deems it appropriate to direct a proper inquiry to be conducted in the matter.

Accordingly, the CBI is directed to conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether any cognizable offense has been committed and if so, by whom. The CBI is directed to submit the report of the preliminary inquiry on or before the next date of hearing,” the bench directed.