The High Court of Meghalaya has come down heavily on “busy bodies” who “waste” too much of the court’s time with needless public interest litigation (PIL).
In a PIL relating to the PA Sangma Integrated Sports Complex, a division bench of Chief Justice Indra Prasanna Mukerji and Justice Wanlura Diengdoh dismissed the litigation brought by one Amit R Marak against seven respondents, including the central government, Central Bureau of Investigation, state government, West Garo Hills Deputy Commissioner and two contractors.
The PIL had to do with the collapse of boundary walls at the new sports complex by Marak, who is a resident of the area. Twice a wall at the complex collapsed and twice the court entertained Marak’s PILs and twice the government repaired the wall.
Now, a third PIL was filed by Marak into the supposed reconstruction of the wall “without proper technical evaluation and decision.” This time, however, the court took a dim view of the PIL, with the two-judge bench sounding a “note of caution” against entertaining it.
“If any person is aggrieved, the proper remedy is regular litigation between the person aggrieved and the government,” the court’s order dismissing the PIL read. “Only if there is some grave dereliction of duty affecting the public at large and those affected by reason of lack of education or knowledge of legal rights or economic hardship or marginalisation in society are unable to approach the Court, that the Court may be approached in this jurisdiction.”
But if every act of commission or omission of the government becomes the subject of a PIL then neither the government nor the court will be able to function, it added.
“Public interest litigation is also not the domain for busy bodies. In this case, there is not even an injury caused to any person. There was [a] breakdown of a temporary structure which was repaired from time to time. There is no complaint that the integrated sports complex is unable to function because of some inaction on the part of the government.
Unnecessary time of the Court has been consumed by this litigation by a busy body,” the bench stated before dismissing the PIL with an expectation that the permanent boundary wall will continue to stand and the sports complex thrive.
