HC dismisses PIL seeking probe into Cyrus Mistry’s death

Mumbai: The Bombay high court on Tuesday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by a Palghar district resident seeking inquiry into the death of businessman Cyrus Mistry in a car crash in September last year

Mumbai: The Bombay high court on Tuesday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by a Palghar district resident seeking inquiry into the death of businessman Cyrus Mistry in a car crash in September last year. The HC also imposed cost on the petitioner.

HT Image

The HC held that the petitioner had no locus standi and had filed the PIL based on available information and did not have any substantive knowledge with regards to the case, and it seemed to be a publicity interest litigation.

The division bench of acting chief justice SV Gangapurwala and justice SV Marne sought to know from the petitioner, Santosh Jedhe, the grounds on which he had filed the petition, seeking harsher charges to be applied to Dr Anahita Pandole and her husband Darius Pandole.

The petitioner had contended that as Anahita, who was driving the ill-fated car, had been drinking the previous night, was responsible for culpable homicide as the car crash killed Mistry and Jehangir Pandole. The plea added that Darius was aware of Anahita’s drinking and yet allowed her to drive, hence, he was guilty of abetment and should be charged under section 304 (A) (causing death by negligence) of the Indian Penal Code as well.

When the court questioned the source of information, the counsel for the petitioner said it was based on news reports and confidential information. The counsel submitted that the court should call for opinions of forensic experts to inform it about the effects of drinking.

However, senior counsels Rafique Dada and Aabad Ponda for the couple submitted that the petitioner had no locus standi and the PIL has no public interest involved, hence it was not maintainable and should be dismissed.

The bench observed, “It appears that the petitioner without a substantive knowledge of the facts has presented this PIL. When a petition is filed, pleadings are on oath, they cannot be casual and wanton pleadings.”

Regarding the claim that Anahita was guilty of drunk driving, the bench said, “Even the statements about drunk driving of the accused are not supported by any evidence on record. When a petition is to be filed in court it has to be substantiated by facts. Especially in PILs. The petitioner is not in the know of facts. He is not remotely connected to the issue.”

The bench then held that such a petition could not be filed with such loose statements. “Charges are to be framed, chargesheet is already filed. We do not see any public interest involved in the PIL. We find the present PIL to be without substance or merits or without cause. We dismiss with costs,” the bench noted.

The amount towards the cost is expected to be mentioned in the detailed order which will be available in due course.