We will decide on PIL continuance even if petitioner withdraws: HC

Team Herald

PANJIM: The High Court of Bombay at Goa said it has the right to decide whether to continue with any public interest litigation (PIL) if a petitioner withdraws from the case. Hearing a writ petition filed against Linnet Nunes Curlies Restaurant & Night Club, the bench comprising Justices G S Patel and Nutan Sardessai also observed that a petitioner cannot withdraw without the court’s leave. 

The court’s strong-worded observations were pointing at petitioner Kashinath Shetye over his statement that he would withdraw all of his several hundred petitions. 

“He tells us he will withdraw all of his several hundred petitions. If this is supposed to be some sort of threat, or meant to intimidate, it is an epic failure; and if these are PILs, it says more about the bona fides of those PILs than he imagines. He is also mistaken if he believes that he can withdraw a PIL without our leave. If the case be genuine, we will continue that PIL with him or without him,” the six page order that dismissed his petition against the restaurant and others, stated.

“If the attempt is to convey that his filing petition after petition is some sort of favour to the court, the judicial system or society at large, then he is simply wrong.” 

The bench came down heavily on Shetye over filing several petitions stating ‘sheer volumes of filings do not impress us’.

“…We have said this before, and we say it again: law is a discourse, and the discourse of law is the discourse of civility. If the first petitioner (Shetye) is so seasoned a campaigner, he should surely know this. It may be that Shetye has brought to this court, the National Green Tribunal and other courts various petitions over time. The sheer volumes of filings do not impress us. We will look to the cause, not the person who brings it, and we will look to it if it is addressed in a manner appropriate to a court of law. By this we mean not just this court, but every court throughout the land,” the division bench further stated.

The court also pointed at his ‘peevish and downright disrespectful’ attitude when confronted on the inappropriateness of his petition, claiming it is seriously and more than somewhat dismayed by his conduct. 

At the end, the court said this was the last time it is reminding Shetye of his obligations to a Court as a litigant before it. “There will not be another,” the bench warned.