Instituted for Oblique Purpose Not Public Interest | Gauhati High Court Dismisses PIL Against Capital Region Act | Labels Petition Frivolous and Imposes ₹20,000 Cost on Petitioners
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Gauhati High Court, Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair, dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed against the extension of jurisdiction of the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority and Guwahati Municipal Corporation into notified tribal belts and blocks. The court found the petition lacking bona fides and termed it a "frivolous petition," imposing a cost of Rs. 20,000 on the petitioners for abuse of judicial process.
The court stated, "We are of the considered view that the present PIL petition has not been so instituted for advancing the public interest but has been so instituted by the petitioners for oblique purpose and seeking publicity." The bench directed that the imposed cost be deposited within one month in the account of the Assam State Legal Services Authority.
The petition was instituted by Amri Karbi Development Society and its office bearers seeking to annul the inclusion of tribal belts within the Assam State Capital Region, which was constituted through the Assam State Capital Region Development Authority Act, 2017. The petitioners alleged that this inclusion would dilute protections guaranteed under Chapter X of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886.
Four primary reliefs were sought:
- To quash the 2017 Act and related notifications extending metropolitan jurisdiction.
- To annul the acquisition of 144 Bighas 19 Lechas of land in Damara Pathar village.
- To mandate implementation of protective provisions under Chapter X of the 1886 Regulation.
- To direct a survey and mapping for return of tribal lands to original owners.
The petitioners contended that the imposition of betterment charges under Section 33 of the 2017 Act would burden marginal tribal farmers. They further objected to the land acquisition carried out for Assam Rifles, claiming it was made under the urgency clause of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act without actual emergency.
However, the court recorded that the petitioners failed to provide any factual basis or supporting material. It observed, "The petitioners, herein, have not prima facie exposed any legal infirmity in the actions of the Governmental authorities which would mandate invocation of the jurisdiction of this Court by way of institution of a PIL application."
The court raised concerns about the bona fides of the petitioners at the outset, noting the absence of supporting facts or legal context. "Only wide-ranging statements expressing apprehension of suffering of the people in general were made," the court recorded.
On the land acquisition issue, the court observed that the names of individuals displaced were not provided. "No particulars of the persons who would be so displaced and/or ejected, were brought on record," it stated.
Regarding the extension of jurisdiction, the court pointed to Section 17(4)(b) of the Assam State Capital Region Development Authority Act, 2017, which mandates that development within tribal belts must respect existing laws and tribal customs. The petitioners, the court said, had not demonstrated any violation of this provision.
Addressing the betterment charges under Section 33 of the Act, the court noted the petitioners ignored Sections 34 and 35, which provide the mechanism for levying and disputing such charges. "The petition is bereft of any material particulars," the bench held.
Quoting from Supreme Court precedents, including Balco Employees' Union (Regd) v. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 333, and Tehseen Poonawala v. Union of India, (2018) 6 SCC 72, the court reiterated the importance of preventing abuse of PIL jurisdiction. It recorded, "The present PIL petition, in our considered view, has been instituted by a busy body for extraneous and ulterior motive."
The court also noted the petitioners had not responded to categorical assertions made by respondents in their counter-affidavits. "Such assertions have not been disputed by the petitioners by way of filing a rejoinder affidavit," it observed.
On the issue of Amchang Wildlife Sanctuary, the court held no specific relief had been sought and noted the respondents' affirmation that development activities would not violate ecological restrictions. The court recorded, "The district administration was bound to maintain the restrictions framed for the protection of the eco-sensitive zones and for the Amchang Wildlife Sanctuary."
The court issued the following final directives:
In view of the fact that the present Public Interest Litigation petition has been held to be frivolous and an abuse of the process of the Court, a cost of Rs. 20,000 (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) is hereby imposed upon the petitioners for instituting such frivolous petition. The petitioners shall deposit the said cost before the Registry of this Court within a period of one month from today. Upon receipt of the amount, the Registry shall deposit the same in the account of the "Assam State Legal Services Authority." In light of the foregoing, the Public Interest Litigation petition is found to be devoid of merit and accordingly stands dismissed.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. M. Sarania, Advocate; Ms. I. Keitzar, Advocate; Mr. H. Medhi, Advocate; Mr. A. I. Kathar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Ms. N. Bordoloi, Standing Counsel for Government of Assam and Revenue Department; Mr. P. Nayak, Additional Advocate General for Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority; Mr. N. Das, Government Advocate for Kamrup (Metro) Administration; Mr. R. K. D. Choudhury, Deputy Solicitor General of India for Union of India and Assam Rifles.
Case Title: Amri Karbi Development Society and Others v. The State of Assam and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: GAU-AS:5227
Case Number: PIL/80/2020
Bench: Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi, Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair
[Read/Download order]
