Safiya Malik

The Gujarat High Court Division Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray dismissed a Public Interest Litigation that sought removal of construction allegedly carried out within the protected zone of a nationally significant mosque in Ahmedabad, finding the petition to be an abuse of court process. The court took note of the petitioner's failure to disclose a previously filed PIL that had been dismissed for default, as well as undisclosed criminal antecedents, and found that the petition was filed with ulterior motives targeting a private developer rather than any genuine public interest. Imposing a cost of Rs. 10 lakh on the petitioner, the court directed the amount be transmitted to the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority for the welfare of orphan children.

The Public Interest Litigation was filed alleging illegal construction near the “Small Stone Mosque,” also known as Rani’s Masjid or Bawa Ali Shah’s Mosque, a monument declared to be of national importance under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. The monument is located near village Kochrab on the southern bank of the Sabarmati River in Ahmedabad. Under the statutory framework introduced by the 2010 amendment to the Act, areas up to 100 meters from a protected monument are classified as “Prohibited Areas,” where construction is barred, while areas between 100 and 300 meters fall within the “Regulated Area,” where construction requires prior approval and a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the competent authority.

Also Read: State Cannot Evade Compensation Responsibility For Vaccine-Related Deaths During Mass Immunisation Programme, Article 21 Imposes Positive Obligation: Supreme Court

The dispute related to Final Plot No. 996/1/A of Town Planning Scheme No. 3, measuring about 1020 square meters. The petitioner alleged that the plot was situated approximately 65 meters from the protected monument and therefore fell within the prohibited area. According to the petitioner, despite this restriction, construction activities were undertaken by a developer. The petitioner also claimed that the construction was being carried out on the basis of a non-transferable NOC issued earlier to another entity.

The respondents maintained that the site actually fell within the regulated area at a distance of about 105 meters from the protected monument. Authorities stated that the NOC had been issued after recommendations and inspection reports from the competent authorities, and that the construction permissions and Building Use permission were granted in accordance with applicable municipal laws and development regulations.

The Court examined the material on record and the pleadings of the parties concerning the maintainability of the Public Interest Litigation and the conduct of the petitioner. The Court recorded that the petitioner had failed to disclose relevant facts regarding earlier proceedings and background information while filing the PIL. The Court stated: “Upon perusal of the rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondent No. 6, it will be seen that the PIL petitioner has admitted to virtually every allegation levelled against the petitioner by the respondent No. 6 and has even prayed for an unconditional apology for not disclosing details of filing earlier PIL in violation of Chapter II of the High Court of Gujarat (Practice and Procedure for Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010.”

The Court recorded that the petitioner had earlier filed another PIL which was dismissed for default and that this fact had not been disclosed while filing the present petition. The Court noted: “Petitioner has made false averments as well as declaration on oath that petitioner has not filed any other Public Interest Litigation, on the contrary, petitioner had earlier filed one Writ Petition (PIL) No.194/2012.”

The Court also recorded allegations placed by the respondents regarding the petitioner’s background and previous litigations. The judgment states: “That petitioner is a habitual offender and is having criminal background which is deliberately not disclosed before this Hon’ble Court in captioned petition.”

After examining the pleadings and rejoinder, the Court assessed whether the petition involved genuine public interest. The Court recorded its conclusion on the nature of the litigation and stated: “In view of the above undisputed position, this Court is of the firm view that the present petition is nothing but a device to misuse and abuse the process of the Court by unscrupulous elements like the PIL petitioner herein to further his own devious purpose.”

The Court further noted the impact of such petitions on judicial proceedings and recorded: “It is shocking that this Court has been made a party in the nefarious design of the PIL petitioner and it is evident that the petition has been filed in complete desecration of the PIL norms and the rules of this Court.”

Also Read: Daily Allowance Of Home Guards Must Be Revised To Match Minimum Pay Of Police Personnel: Gujarat High Court

The Court directed:“it will be in the fitness of things to dismiss the present petition with costs of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only), which shall be deposited by the petitioner within a period of two months from today. The amount so deposited shall be transmitted to the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority and shall be spent in the welfare project for orphan children. Failure to do so will entail recovery of the same from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. N. V. Gandhi, Advocate

For the Respondents: Ms. Maithili Mehta, Additional Government Pleader; Mr. Ankit Shah, Advocate; Mr. Deep D. Vyas, Advocate; Mr. D. M. Devnani, Advocate; Mr. Jay M. Thakkar, Advocate

Case Title: Janaksinh Khushalsinh Parmar v. Ministry of Culture, Govt. of India & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026:GUJHC:17200-DB
Case Number: Writ Petition (PIL) No. 67 of 2022
Bench: Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal, Justice D.N. Ray