W.P.No.34015/2017 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE19H DAY OF JULY, 2018 PRESENT HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.34015 OF2017(APMC) PIL BETWEEN:
1. B. S. DEVARAJU S/O. SHIVANANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT40YEARS, BENNAYAKANAHALLI, KALLEGOWDANAPALYA POST, KASABA HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 201.
2. H. B. DIWAKAR S/O. H. R. BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT43YEARS, HOGAVANAGHATTA, RANGAPURA POST, TIPTUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 201.
3. M. NAGESH S/O. MALIAPPA, AGED ABOUT37YEARS, BILIGEREPALYA, BILIGERE POST, KIBBANHALLI HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK, W.P.No.34015/2017 - 2 - TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 201.
5.
4. V. S. SHANMUKHA S/O. SHEKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT45YEARS, TARABENAHALLI, J.C. PURA POST, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 201. T. S. DEVARAJU S/O. SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT37YEARS, THIMLAPURA, KIBBANAHALLI HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 201. T. S. GANGADHARASWAMY S/O. SHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT40YEARS, TARABENAHALLI, J.C. PURA POST, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 201.
6. 7. K. GANGADHAR S/O, KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT32YEARS, ALBUR, ALBUR POST, NONAVINAKERE HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 201.
8. D. S. DEVARAJU S/O. SHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT49YEARS, DHARMEGOWDANAPALYA, NELLIKERE POST, NONAVINAKERE HOBLI, W.P.No.34015/2017 - 3 - TIPTUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 201.
9. G. S. CHETHAN S/O. SHIVASHANKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT28YEARS, GOWDANAKATTE, MATTIHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 201.
10. B. S. YOGEESHWARASWAMY S/O. B. BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT39YEARS, MST ROAD, TIPTUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 201.
11. H. S. SRIKANTH S/O. H. S. SRIKANTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT36YEARS, NO.300, 3RD MAIN ROAD, K.R. EXTENSION, TIPTUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 201. (BY SRI.AJITH A SHETTY, ADV.) AND1 STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING, NO.16, 2ND RAJBHAVAN ROAD, POST BOX NO.5309, BANGALORE-560 001, ... PETITIONERS2 W.P.No.34015/2017 - 4 - BY ITS DIRECTOR. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR-572 201.
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 201.
4. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE, TIPTUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 201, BY ITS SECRETARY. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.H.PRASHANTH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3, SRI.T SWAROOP, ADV. FOR C/R4) --- THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDEROF APPROVAL DTD:17.4.2016 PASSED BY THE R-1 AUTHORITY AS PER ANNEXURE-E TO THE W.P. IN SO FAR AS ITEM NUMBER1IN PACKAGE THEREOF, WHICH RELATES TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING IN THE PREMISES OWNED BY THE R-4 COMMITTEE AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE, MADE THE FOLLOWING: W.P.No.34015/2017 - 5 -
ORDERBy way of this petition, framed and styled as a public interest litigation (‘PIL’), 11 persons, said to be the residents of Tumakuru District and engaged in farming, have essentially questioned the proposal for construction of a new administrative building in the premises owned by the respondent No.4 – Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Tiptur, (‘APMC’). Following are the reliefs claimed in this petition:- bearing reference “(i) issue a writ of certiorari, thereby quashing the impugned order of approval dated 17th April, 2016, number (KME/MAY/A.A/11857/2015-16) passed by the 1st Respondent Authority as per ANNEXURE-E to the writ petition in so far as item number 1 in package thereof, which relates to the construction of a new administrative building in the premises owned by the 4th Respondent Committee; (ii) issue a writ of certiorari, thereby quashing the order of administrative approval dated 04th July, number 2016, KME/YOJANE/VKY/1965/2016-17 per ANNEXURE-F to the writ petition, in so far as item number 10 in Part-2 thereof, which relates to the construction of a new administrative building in the premises owned by the 4th Respondent Committee; reference bearing as W.P.No.34015/2017 - 6 - bearing reference (iii) issue a writ of certiorari, thereby quashing the impugned tender notification dated 19th May, 2017, number K.U.M.S(T)/ABHIVRUDDHI/176/2017-18, as per ANNEXURE-M to the writ petition, in so far as item number 1 in package thereof, which relates the construction of a new administrative to the 4th building Respondent Committee; and (iv) grant such other relief/s as this Hon’ble Court would deem fit to be granted under the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the interest of justice and equity.” the premises owned by in By way of interim relief, the petitioners have sought stay over operation of the impugned tender notification dated 19.05.2017 relating to the construction of new administrative building of the respondent No.4 APMC. While alleging that there had been ‘glaring gaps’ in the basic infrastructure, the petitioners have averred that the respondent No.4 APMC and its three sub-markets were in urgent need of infrastructure such as market yards, godowns, cold storage facility and roads. The petitioners have also stated that several crops such as areca, copra, mango, paddy, tamarind and pomegranate have not been included in W.P.No.34015/2017 - 7 - the trading activity of APMC and no funds are being allocated for development of value added products and by-products. The petitioners have further averred that the respondent-APMC has proposed the impugned project to splurge an amount of Rs.3.50 crores on the new administrative building; and that such a huge infrastructure was sought to be built, though the APMC was having an approved staff strength of 29 and currently was operating with only 8 individuals over an existing 8000 sq.ft. of structure. The petitioners claim that they are ‘commonly aggrieved by such irresponsible decisions’, where their basic needs remain unfulfilled, but the respondent authorities are indulging in wasteful expenditure. This petition was taken up for consideration on 07.08.2017 when a Division bench of this Court, while issuing notices and while granting time to the respondents to file their statement of objections, directed that the parties shall maintain status quo in relation to the property in dispute. The W.P.No.34015/2017 - 8 - said stay order, obviously, had the effect of halting the execution of the project sought to be questioned. In the statement of objections filed on behalf of respondent No.4, it is stated that the functioning of APMC which is the oldest market in the State, is recognized and appreciated by the State as also Central Government as a model market for e-tendering. The modalities and methods of online trading system in the aid of farmers have been specified. It is asserted that all the three sub-market yards of APMC were being developed simultaneously and none was left out unattended or lagging behind in infrastructure. It is also indicated that the cold storage facility is available in the sub-market yard of APMC in Tiptur City; and no other requisition for cold storage has been received. The respondent-APMC has further pointed out that for the smooth functioning of the e-tendering process, larger infrastructure was required for the farmers, traders and staff; and the present building being inconvenient, a new building was proposed to be constructed with separate halls and W.P.No.34015/2017 - 9 - computer rooms dedicated to e-tendering system with other facilities, including those for the differently abled persons. The requirement of proper meeting hall has also been indicated. Several other facts have been stated as regards use of the existing infrastructure and the need for further infrastructure and the steps being taken in that regard. A significant aspect of the matter specified in the statement of objections is that the proposal to build a new administrative building of the respondent No.4 APMC was considered as back as on 22.03.2006 and in the said meeting, the petitioner No.2-Shri.H.B.Diwakar was present as a member of APMC, who did not object to the passing of the resolution for construction of a new administrative building. The averments in this regard in the statement of objections read as under: “15. It is submitted that, the 2nd petitioner H.B.Diwakar is a present member of the Market Committee and he was also the member of the Market Committee at the time of passing of the resolution dt:22/03/2006 (as per Annexure-R1), he didn’t resist the passing of the resolution for construction of the new building nor he opposed the resolution for seeking the approval of the Director of Agricultural Marketing for calling of W.P.No.34015/2017 - 10 - tender for the construction of the new building, in one breathe he consents for construction of the new building during the meetings of the Market Committee and in another breathe he files this writ petition praying not to construct the new building. This clearly shows that, all is not well in the case put forth by the petitioners. This petition is nothing but a politically motivated petition to hinder the progress of the 4th respondent.” During the course of consideration of this matter yesterday, i.e. 18.07.2018, after noticing the submissions on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner No.2 had, in fact, been a party to the very same decision which is sought to be questioned in this petition, learned counsel for the petitioners was queried on such conduct, particularly after noticing that the relevant facts, about the petitioner No.2 being a member of the respondent No.4 APMC and having been a party to the decisions sought to be questioned in this petition, have not been divulged in this petition. At request, learned counsel was granted a day’s time to complete his instructions. Today, learned counsel for the petitioners frankly submits that as per the instructions received from the petitioner Nos.3 and 5, the petitioner No.2 was a member of W.P.No.34015/2017 - 11 - the respondent No.4 APMC and he was indeed present in the meetings when the decision sought to be questioned in this petition were taken; and he was a party to such decisions. It is not in dispute that the petitioner No.2 has continued to be a member of the respondent No.4 APMC at least since the year 2005, inasmuch as he was elected in 2005, then in the year 2011 and further in the year 2017. It is also undeniable that this status of the petitioner No.2 as member of APMC has not been disclosed in this petition. To our queries further, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 has filed a Memo, placing on record, inter alia, the documents to the effect that in the meeting of the respondent No.4 APMC held on 06.04.2016, the petitioner No.2 was present as a member where several subjects were discussed and resolutions were adopted. Indisputably, subject No.21 in the said meeting dated 06.04.2016 had been: ‘about taking up developmental works in main market, sub-markets and roads and others under 60(c) for the APMC, Tiptur, for the year 2016-17 under the annual action plan’. On the said W.P.No.34015/2017 - 12 - subject, a detailed resolution was adopted indicating the estimated costs for several developmental works and, of course, a major component therein, i.e., a sum of Rs.3.50 crores, had been towards construction of the administrative block in the main market yard of respondent No.4 APMC. Significantly, after detailed discussions on the cost list prepared by the Executive Engineer, Tumakuru regarding developmental works, it was decided ‘unanimously’ that the proposal be sent to the higher authorities for approval and then the action plan for the year 2016-17 be taken up. It is nowhere stated in this petition that the petitioner No.2 was directly a party to the aforesaid resolutions dated 22.03.2006 and 06.04.2016 in his capacity as a member of the respondent No.4 APMC. The facts that the petitioner No.2 was carrying the capacity of a member of the respondent No.4 APMC and was indeed a party to such decisions had been of material information having direct bearing on the subject matter; and it is difficult to find even a remote justification for the W.P.No.34015/2017 - 13 - concealment of this information in this petition. The only inference available in the matter is that the petitioners have deliberately concealed this material information to somehow maintain this petition and thwart the developmental work of the respondent No.4 APMC. The facts of this case, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the material placed on record, leave nothing to doubt that while seeking to question the proposal for construction of the new administrative block on the specious grounds that a substantial part of funds was being sought to be diverted towards a structure not so required, and while asserting that other problems related with logistics were required to be taken care of, the petitioners have conveniently omitted to mention that the petitioner No.2 was indeed a Member of the respondent No.4 APMC since the year 2005 and had been the party to the decision earlier taken in the general meeting of the APMC on 22.03.2006, where the need of new administrative building was examined, and it was provided that the existing facilities for stay of farmers in ‘Raitha Bhavan’ may be continued until the new W.P.No.34015/2017 - 14 - administrative office building was ready. The petitioners have also omitted to state that in the meeting dated 06.04.2016, the petitioner No.2 was again present as a Member of APMC and consciously participated in the meeting, wherein, amongst others, the issue relating to the developmental works was taken up as subject No.21 and on the said subject, precisely the allocation for the construction of administrative block in the main market yard was also provided; and it was agreed unanimously that the entire proposal be sent to the higher authorities for approval. In the aforesaid indisputable fact situation, we are clearly of the view that the petitioner No.2 cannot be acceded the liberty to challenge the very same decision to which, he was a party and is, obviously, bound by it. Apart from the above, the disturbing feature of the present case is that such a status of the petitioner No.2 and his direct involvement in the very same decision sought to be questioned has not even been divulged in this petition. The W.P.No.34015/2017 - 15 - present petition, therefore, suffers from the active concealment of material information. So far the other petitioners are concerned, even if not the Members of APMC, they have consciously chosen to be the common parties with the petitioner No.2 in this petition. The commonness of the object of the petitioners is in fact asserted in the petition itself where the petitioners have boldly claimed that they were ‘commonly aggrieved’ by the alleged ‘irresponsible actions’. The persons joining this PIL petition as joint petitioners, evidently, carry the same interest and had been jointly working towards the common objective i.e., to frustrate the project of the new administrative building of the respondent No.4 APMC. On the frame of this petition and on the purport thereof, the petitioners would remain jointly responsible for the shortcomings as noticed. Per force, the consequences of concealment of material information fall on all the petitioners alike; of course, with primary responsibility of the petitioner No.2. W.P.No.34015/2017 - 16 - Even on the merits of the case, we are clearly of the view that the petitioners, or any person for that matter, cannot be acceded the liberty to suggest by way of a PIL petition as to how the budgetary allocations are to be made and what administrative decisions are to be taken by the decision taking body like the respondent No.4 APMC. Any suggestion about taking up some developmental work is a matter entirely different and could be that of a progressive approach but, the entire frame of this petition and the interim relief as claimed make it absolutely clear that the intention behind the present petition had only been of obstructing the construction of new administrative block and nothing else. Significantly, in the interim relief, the petitioners only prayed for staying the operation of the tender notification dated 19.05.2017, whereby the work of the construction of new administrative building was to be awarded. In the principal prayers and even in the interim relief, there is not even a suggestion about any relief towards any constructive work or construction. The petition, as framed and filed, leaves nothing to doubt that the only purpose had been to obstruct the W.P.No.34015/2017 - 17 - construction of new administrative block and nothing else. The petition of this nature could hardly be considered espousing any genuine public cause. This is apart from the fact that the respondent No.4, in its detailed reply, has specifically pointed out the reasons and circumstances for which such a decision for construction of the new administrative block was taken, so as to facilitate the proper working of advanced system of e-tendering. The petition of the present nature, where the petitioners do not appear espousing any public cause and, on the other hand, are guilty of the concealment of material information, deserves no consideration. However, as indicated hereinbefore, this petition, suffering from concealment of material information, was entertained on 07.08.2017 and the parties were directed to maintain status quo in relation to the ‘property in dispute’. Although there had not been any such ‘property in dispute’ in the present matter, but the ultimate result of the said stay order had been that the work of the construction of new administrative block of the respondent No.4 APMC, which W.P.No.34015/2017 - 18 - was proposed to be given in the month of May 2017, has remained stalled for all this time. This has only resulted in unnecessary price escalation, apart from delaying the project itself without any corresponding gain to anyone and without serving any public cause. For all the factors and circumstances noticed above, we are constrained to observe that the present one is a classic example of the abuse of PIL jurisdiction of this Court with active concealment of material information; and, several of the features indicative of questionable character of a PIL, as exemplified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal .v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and Others: (2010) 3 SCC402 are apparent in the present case. Hence, this petition deserves to be dismissed with monetary directions of exemplary costs as also non-monetary directions for debarring the petitioner No.2 from filing any petition in the name of PIL. In the case of Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra), with reference to several of the past decisions, and while reiterating that the PIL jurisdiction is required to be dealt with W.P.No.34015/2017 - 19 - consciously and only for genuine public causes; and while issuing several directions to curb the unnecessary approach to the Constitutional Courts in the name of PIL so as to maintain the purity and sanctity of PIL jurisdiction, the Supreme Court has observed, inter alia, as under: “143. Unfortunately, of late, it has been noticed that such an important jurisdiction which has been carefully carved out, created and nurtured with great care and caution by the courts, is being blatantly abused by filing some petitions with oblique motives. We think time has come when genuine and bona fide public interest litigation must be encouraged whereas frivolous public interest litigation should be discouraged. In our considered opinion, we have to protect and preserve this important jurisdiction in the larger interest of the people of this country but we must take effective steps to prevent and cure its abuse on the basis of monetary and non-monetary directions by the courts.
144. In BALCO Employees' Union v. Union of India this Court recognized that there have been, in recent times, increasing instances of abuse of public interest litigation. Accordingly, the Court has devised a number of strategies to ensure that the attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be allowed to be used for suspicious products of mischief. Firstly, the Supreme Court has limited standing in PIL to individuals "acting bona the Supreme Court has sanctioned the imposition of "exemplary costs" as a deterrent against frivolous and vexatious public interest litigations. Thirdly, the Supreme Court has instructed the High fide."
Secondly, W.P.No.34015/2017 - 20 - Courts to be more selective in entertaining the public interest litigations.
145. In S.P. Gupta case this Court has found that this liberal standard makes it critical to limit standing to individuals "acting bona fide”. To avoid entertaining frivolous and vexatious petitions under the guise of PIL, the Court has excluded two groups of persons from obtaining standing in PIL petitions. First, the Supreme Court has rejected awarding standing to "meddlesome interlopers". Second, the Court has denied standing to interveners bringing public interest litigation for personal gain.
146. In Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti the Court withheld standing from the applicant on grounds that the applicant brought the suit motivated by enmity between the parties.
147. Thus, the Supreme Court has attempted to create a body of jurisprudence that accords broad enough standing to admit genuine PIL petitions, but nonetheless limits standing to thwart frivolous and vexations petitions. The Supreme Court broadly the frivolous public interest litigation petitions by two methods-one monetary and second, non- monetary. tried to curtail 148. The first category of cases is that where the Court on the filing of frivolous public interest litigation petitions, dismissed the petitions with exemplary costs. In Neetu v. State of Punjab, the Court concluded that it is necessary to impose exemplary costs to ensure that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the courts. W.P.No.34015/2017 - 21 - 149. In S.P. Anand v. H.D. Deve Gowda the Court warned that (SCC p. 745, para
18) it is of utmost importance that those who invoke the jurisdiction of this Court “seeking a waiver of the locus standi rule must exercise restraint in moving the Court by not plunging in areas wherein they are not well-versed”.
150. In Sanjeev Bhatnagar v. Union of India this Court went a step further by imposing a monetary penalty against an Advocate for filing a frivolous and vexatious PIL petition. The Court found that the petition was devoid of public interest, and instead labelled it as "publicity interest litigation". Thus, the Court dismissed the petition with costs of Rs.10,000.
151. Similarly, in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's monetary penalty against a member of the Bar for filing a frivolous and vexatious PIL petition. This Court found that the petition was nothing but a camouflage to foster personal dispute. Observing that no one should be permitted to bring disgrace to the noble profession, the imposition of the penalty of Rs. 25,000 by the High Court was appropriate. Evidently, the Supreme Court has set clear precedent validating the imposition of monetary penalties against frivolous and vexatious PIL petitions, especially when filed by advocates. the Court concluded that 152. This Court, in the second category of cases, even passed harsher orders. In Charan Lal Sahu v. Zail Singh the Supreme Court observed that (SCC p. 400, para 17), "we would have been justified in passing a heavy order of costs against the two petitioners" for filing a "light- hearted and indifferent" PIL petition. However, to prevent "nipping in the bud a well-founded claim W.P.No.34015/2017 - 22 - on a future occasion", the Court opted against imposing monetary costs on the petitioners. In that case, this Court concluded that the petition was careless, meaningless, clumsy and against public interest. Therefore, the Court ordered the Registry initiate prosecution proceedings against the petitioner under the Contempt of Courts Act. Additionally, the court forbade the Registry from entertaining any future PIL petitions filed by the petitioner, who was an advocate in that case. to 153. In J.
Jayalalitha v. Govt. of T.N. this court laid down that public interest litigation can be filed by any person challenging the misuse or improper use of any public property including the political party in power for the reason that interest of individuals cannot be placed above or preferred to a larger public interest.
154. This court has been quite conscious that the forum of this court should not be abused by any one for personal gain or for any oblique motive. the jurisdiction is being abused by unscrupulous persons for their personal gain. Therefore, the court must take care that the forum be not abused by any person for personal gain. this court held In BALCO that 155. In Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware this court expressed its anguish on misuse of the forum of the court under interest litigation and observed (SCC p. 595, para
12) that the the garb of public “[p].ublic interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest, an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity-seeking is not judiciary has the W.P.No.34015/2017 - 23 - lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. ... The court must not allow its process oblique considerations...” abused for be to 156. case In Thaware the Court encouraged the imposition of a non-monetary penalty against a PIL petition filed by a member of the bar. The Court directed the Bar Councils and Bar Associations to ensure that no member of the Bar becomes party as petitioner or in aiding and/or abetting files frivolous petitions carrying the attractive brand name of Public Interest Litigation. This direction impels the Bar Councils and Bar Associations to disbar members found guilty of frivolous and vexatious PIL petitions.” filing (underlining supplied for emphasis) Coming down heavily on the frivolous and groundless filings, particularly by a litigant who would take liberties with the truth or with the procedures of the Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in the case of Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik v. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar: (2017) 5 SCC496as under: “13. This Court must view with disfavor any attempt by a litigant to abuse the process. The sanctity of the judicial process will be seriously eroded if such attempts are not dealt with firmly. A litigant who takes liberties with the truth or with the procedures of the Court should be left in no doubt about the consequences to follow. Others W.P.No.34015/2017 - 24 - should not venture along the same path in the hope or on a misplaced expectation of judicial leniency. Exemplary costs are inevitable, and even necessary, in order to ensure that in litigation, as in the law which is practised in our country, there is no premium on the truth.
14. Courts across the legal system - this Court not being an exception - are choked with litigation. Frivolous and groundless filings constitute a serious menace to the administration of justice. They consume time and clog the infrastructure. Productive resources which should be deployed in the handling of genuine causes are dissipated in attending to cases filed only to benefit from delay, by prolonging dead issues and pursuing worthless causes. No litigant can have a vested interest in delay. Unfortunately, as the present case exemplifies, the process of dispensing justice is misused by the unscrupulous to the detriment of the legitimate. The present case is an illustration of how a simple issue has occupied the time of the courts and of how successive applications have been to prolong the inevitable. The person in whose favour the balance of justice lies has in the process been left in the lurch by repeated attempts to revive a stale issue. This tendency can be curbed only if courts across the system adopt an institutional approach which penalizes such behaviour. Liberal access to justice does not mean access to chaos and indiscipline. A strong message must be conveyed that courts of justice will not be allowed to be disrupted by litigative strategies designed to profit from the delays of the law. Unless remedial action is taken by all courts here and now our society will breed a legal culture based on evasion instead of abidance. It is the duty of every court to firmly deal with such situations. The imposition of exemplary costs is a filed W.P.No.34015/2017 - 25 - necessary instrument which has to be deployed to weed out, as well as to prevent the filing of frivolous cases. It is only then that the courts can set apart time to resolve genuine causes and answer the concerns of those who are in need of justice. Imposition of real time costs is also necessary to ensure that access to courts is available to citizens with genuine grievances. Otherwise, the doors would be shut to legitimate causes simply by the weight of undeserving cases which flood the system. Such a situation cannot be allowed to come to pass. Hence it is not merely a matter of discretion but a duty and obligation cast upon all courts to ensure that the legal system is not exploited by those who use the forms of the law to defeat or delay justice. We commend all courts to deal with frivolous filings in the same manner.” (underlining supplied for emphasis) In the aforesaid case of Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik, the frivolous petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with costs quantified at Rs.5,00,000/-. Recently, on 18.07.2018, while dismissing another baseless and frivolous petition filed as a PIL (W.P. No.25577 of 2018) without any substantial public cause and without impleading the necessary parties, this Court imposed costs of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh), after reference to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balwant Singh W.P.No.34015/2017 - 26 - Chaufal (supra). In the said petition, this Court observed and directed as under:- the “Several of features which are indicative of the questionable character of a petition, which is filed ostensibly as a PIL, but is not espousing any public cause are, obviously, available in the present petition. This petition could only be said to be an unwarranted and meddlesome interloping attempt and that too, while withholding certain relevant facts; while not even impleading the relevant persons as parties; and on a cause that is required to be taken up in different forum. Therefore, we are constrained to observe to be dismissed with exemplary costs. this petition is required that Accordingly, and in view of the above, this petition is dismissed with costs in the sum of `1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh), to be deposited by the petitioner within 30 days from today with the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru. If this amount of costs is not deposited by the petitioner the Deputy within 30 days Commissioner concerned shall ensure its recovery from the petitioner in accordance with law. today, from On being deposited/recovered, the Deputy Commissioner concerned shall remit the amount aforesaid to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, who shall utilize the same for Victim Compensation Scheme cases.” In the present case, as noticed above, when the petition does not appear espousing any public cause and has been W.P.No.34015/2017 - 27 - filed while concealing material information that the petitioner No.2 was in fact a party to the decision sought to be questioned, this petition is required to be dismissed with exemplary costs on each of the petitioner and excessive exemplary cost on the petitioner No.2, who also deserves to be debarred from attempting any other misadventure in the name of PIL. However, having regard to the circumstances of the case, even when the petitioners have not shown any keenness for execution of the developmental works, we are of the view that, looking to the objectives of the APMC, it would serve the cause of justice if the amount of costs to be recovered from the petitioners is utilized for such developmental works of the APMC. Accordingly and in view of the above, this petition stands dismissed, but while providing that: a) The petitioner Nos.1 and 3 to 11 shall be liable to pay costs in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) each W.P.No.34015/2017 - 28 - and the petitioner No.2 shall be liable to pay costs in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs); b) The amount of costs shall be deposited by each of the petitioners with the Deputy Commissioner, Tumakuru District, within 40 days from today; c) On failure to deposit the amount aforesaid, the Deputy Commissioner shall ensure recovery from the petitioners in accordance with law; d) Upon deposit/recovery of the amount of costs (in total Rs.15,00,000/-), the same shall be kept in a separate account by the Deputy Commissioner concerned and shall be utilised for construction of the other necessary facilities, including a cold storage, as may be decided by the APMC in a meeting to be convened specifically for that purpose. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, so far the petitioner No.2 is concerned, we are constrained to order that no other petition, if filed by him in this Court in the nature of a public interest litigation, shall be entertained. It goes W.P.No.34015/2017 - 29 - without saying that this debarment of the petitioner No.2 shall not apply to any cause of personal nature. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE vgh*/ca/BSR