Most PILs lack public interest: High Court

The High Court of Karnataka on Tuesday observed that most of the public interest litigations filed in the court were not of public interest in nature.

“We find that 80 per cent of PILs are not in public interest,” Chief Justice D H Waghela observed during the hearing of a PIL challenging the construction of a stadium on a civic amenity site in Shimoga.

Nagaraja Rao and others had approached the court contending that the four-acre plot on which the stadium was being constructed should be maintained as a park and the area reserved for park cannot be divered for other purposes under zonal regulations.

However, government counsel R Devdas pointed out that there existed a school in the vicinity and the petitioners provide transportation facility to the students of the school.
Following the submission, the Division Bench noted that the matter was not a public interest litigation as the petitioners park their vehicles on the land in question and they would be deprived of the parking space in the event of construction of the stadium.

“If the petitioners are genuinely concerned in protection of the park, their first complaint should be against the school, which is also constructed on the said land. Where is the complaint against the school ?” Chief Justice sought to know.

The government counsel further submitted that zonal regulations allow construction of recreational centres, crematoriums and stadia. He brought to the notice of the court that the work on the stadium had stopped for the past eight months resulting in escalation of the project cost.

 The Bench reserved the judgement on the matter.

Plea disposed of

The High Court has disposed off a petition seeking dismissal of C M Mallikarjuna, the in-charge controller of Legal Metrology after the government counsel submitted that the official had already been removed from service.

Sudhakar B S had moved the court seeking dismissal of Mallikarjuna alleging that the latter had been allowed to continue in service in spite of a conviction by a competent court. He had contended that though Mallikarjuna moved the High Court against the conviction, the HC had stayed his sentence but not his dismissal.