Cuttack: Describing a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the construction of a govt ‘Kalyan Mandap’ on private land in Badamba block of Cuttack district as a “classic example” of its misuse and abuse, Orissa high court has dismissed the petition, observing that the petitioner had no legal interest in the property and had apparently invoked the plea to settle a “personal score”.A division bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Chittaranjan Dash, in its Sept 10 order, also imposed a Rs 50,000 exemplary fine on petitioner Biswanath Behera of Badamba and directed him to deposit the amount with Odisha State Legal Services Authority (OSLSA) within two weeks. The court ordered that the Rs 50,000 amount, once deposited, be kept in the account earmarked for juveniles.The bench came down heavily on the manner in which the PIL jurisdiction had been invoked. “This is one of the classic examples where the remedy in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is misused and abused by a person for settling his personal score,” the court observed, noting Behera was neither the owner nor occupier nor a settlee of the land. More importantly, the actual owner had not objected to the construction.Additional govt advocate Debashis Tripathy informed the court that the construction had been undertaken after obtaining a no-objection from the landowner.The bench said the owner had every right to protect and deal with the property, pointing out that the Right to Property is a constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution. “A third person who has no semblance of right, title and interest in respect of the said property cannot use the tool of Public Interest Litigation” to object to construction on it, the bench said.The court found no infringement of any fundamental or constitutional right under Article 300-A. It held that a third party with no right or interest in the property could not use PIL proceedings in a way that impeded the rightful owner’s rights. “Such frivolous Public Interest Litigation deserves dismissal with exemplary costs,” the bench said.
