BOMBAY HIGH COURT IMPOSED 5L COST ON HABITUAL PETITIONER

BOMBAY HIGH COURT IMPOSED 5L COST ON HABITUAL PETITIONER

-Vidhi Gupta

BACKGROUND:

The PIL sought the writ of mandamus to be issued directing Union Ministry of Human Resource and Development and Council of Indian School Certificate Examination to register an FIR against the council for the Indian School Certificate for offenses punishable under Sections 406, 420,120- read with section 34IPC.

Section 406 of IPC states “Criminal Breach of Trust”. Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 3 years or with fine or with both.

Section 420 of IPC deals with the cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. The maximum punishment that can be awarded is imprisonment for a term of 7 years and fine.

Section 120 (b) of IPC states : whoever is the party to the criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death ,imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of 2 years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this code for the punishment of such conspiracy ,be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offense.

Whoever is the party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offense punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of 6 months or with fine or with both.

Section 34 of IPC states act done by several persons in the furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.

The Bombay High court on Thursday imposed a cost of Rs.5L on the petitioner Sapan Shrivastava for “Gross abuse of process of the court”.

READ ALSO: BCI ASKS COURTS TO BAR OVER 4700 ADVOCATES 

KEY ISSUE:

The petitioner sought information from the government of India under Right to Information Act concerning whether the Council for the  Indian School of certificate was recognized or not and received the response from the Department of School Education and Literacy on January 20, 2016, that the HRD ministry had only 2 education boards being Central Board of Secondary Education and National Institute of Open Schooling.

However, it was informed to the petitioner that ‘education’ being in the concurrent list of the constitution, Education Boards are also set up by the State Governments either under the act of the state legislature or an executive order issued by the concerned state government. Without verifying from the state governments, the petition was filed praying as above.

This was not the first time that action has been taken against Shrivastava who has filed over 40PILS before the high court. Previously the court had reprimanded him for claiming to belong to the economically weaker section even though he bore the cost of such litigation.

CONCLUSION:

The court observed that the motive of the petitioner to do so as evidenced by the printout generated from the world of the internet. The petitioner has posted on the website that he was the campaigner against corruption. From this website, the petitioner received an online donation. On the said webpage, the petitioner stated that he was the social activist cum media reporter fighting against the education sector. His webpage further stated that there over 200 illegal schools in Bombay and 70 in thane.

After referring to the petitioner claims the court noted that various schools have addressed a communication to the chief executive and secretary of CISE that they have been receiving threatening emails from the petitioner, the petitioner had actually threatened the public schools that he would file criminal case in public interest against the schools to whom he had addressed.

The court was satisfied that the petitioner is misusing the process of the court for the reasons on the webpage of the petitioner where he has been posting the orders passed by this court in the instant Public Interest Litigation seeking funds from the public.

While dismissing the said PIL Bombay High court imposed a cost of Rs.5L on the petitioner and requested CISCE’s lawyer senior counsel TN Subramanian to file a FIR for extortion against the petitioner .Court also directed Milap Social Ventures India Pvt Ltd , which hosts the petitioner’s webpage to block it for the reason that the petitioner is using the website to generate funds by misusing the process of this court.    

READ ALSO:  RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT CAN’T BE HELD TO BE AN ADMISSION