Mir Farhat
SRINAGAR, Oct 24: Jammu and Kashmir High Court today dismissed the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) questioning construction of Rajbagh Bridge and slapped a cost of Rs 50,000 costs on the petitioners saying the writ petition has been filed for oblique motives as a proxy in the guise of PIL. “We do not find any ground to entertain this petition….it is dismissed along with the connected CMP’s with costs of Rs 50,000 to be equally borne by the petitioners and paid within one month from today. The costs on realization shall be deposited in the Legal Aid Fund of the High Court,” directed a Division Bench of High Court comprising Chief Justice M M Kumar and Justice Ali Mohammad Magray. Rapping the petitioners, the bench held that it becomes manifest the writ petition in the guise of public interest has been actually filed for oblique motives as a proxy for the Presentation Convent School management. “Therefore, it can safely said that they come to the court not with any genuine cause involving any public interest, but on the contrary they seek to stall a project that has been going on since 1981 to enhance road connectivity for larger public interest,” the court said. The court further observed that since 30 percent of the work on the bridge has been completed at a whooping cost, and when a public project is undertaken and crores of money spent, the petitioners in the garb of PIL could not be permitted to challenge the policy decision taken after a lapse of time. Citing a Supreme Court judgment (State of Uttaranchal vs Balwant Singh), the bench observed the High Courts have been asked that before entertaining such PIL’s the courts should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressing of genuine public harm or injury, and there is no private motive, personal gain behind such PIL. And PIL’s filed by busy bodies for extraneous and ulterior must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs to curb such frivolous petitions. The PIL was filed by Aftab Hilali Shah alias Shahid-ul-Islam, media advisor to Hurriyat Chairman Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, and Zareef Ahamd Zareef through their counsel Advocate Zaffar Ahmad Shah questioning construction of the bridge as “it involved security of the school children”. Pulling up the counsel, the court observed that plea regarding the security of the school children has to be taken with a pinch of salt as already there are two 4-lane roads running on two sides of the school constructed in pursuance of the instant project, which are used by both public and private transport and do not jeopardize the security of the students. The pleas of harm to ecology and environment are figment of imagination as these issues are to be dealt with by the concerned authorities who, we are sure, would have gone in all these aspects before taking off the project, the court said.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel