<p>In a breather to Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan, the Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a petition alleging violation of environmental laws by the actor in carrying out specific constructions at his bungalow “Mannat.”<br /><br /></p>.<p>A bench of justices D K Jain and A R Dave dismissed the public interest litigation (PIL) as the petitioners failed to convince the court as to why they had “picked up” only Khan’s bungalow. The court said it would have taken up the case had the petitioners gone beyond Khan.<br /><br />“Is there no violation of laws by other building owners? Why did you pick up a case only against one person? Because he happens to be a celebrity,” the bench said.<br /><br />Advocate Munawwar, appearing for the petitioners Simpreet Singh and Amit Maruand, submitted that they had information on Khan’s property only.<br /><br />“There were 32 instances of violations of law. Even though the area fell under the coastal regulation zone one, respondent (Khan) has not taken any mandatory approval from the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) before undertaking works in the building,” counsel said.<br /><br />“How do you say that there is no given violation in other properties? That is where the problem of bona fide comes up,” the bench countered.<br /><br />Counsel also pleaded that Khan had bypassed the Land Ceiling Act. <br /><br />Senior counsel Mukul Rohtagi, appearing for Khan, termed the PIL as a publicity interest petition.<br /><br />At the beginning of the proceedings, the bench told the petitioners that if the court did not agree with their contention, it would impose cost on them for wasting the court’s time.<br /><br />However, after the hearing, the apex court dismissed the special leave petition without slapping any cost on the petitioners.<br /><br /><br /></p>
<p>In a breather to Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan, the Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a petition alleging violation of environmental laws by the actor in carrying out specific constructions at his bungalow “Mannat.”<br /><br /></p>.<p>A bench of justices D K Jain and A R Dave dismissed the public interest litigation (PIL) as the petitioners failed to convince the court as to why they had “picked up” only Khan’s bungalow. The court said it would have taken up the case had the petitioners gone beyond Khan.<br /><br />“Is there no violation of laws by other building owners? Why did you pick up a case only against one person? Because he happens to be a celebrity,” the bench said.<br /><br />Advocate Munawwar, appearing for the petitioners Simpreet Singh and Amit Maruand, submitted that they had information on Khan’s property only.<br /><br />“There were 32 instances of violations of law. Even though the area fell under the coastal regulation zone one, respondent (Khan) has not taken any mandatory approval from the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) before undertaking works in the building,” counsel said.<br /><br />“How do you say that there is no given violation in other properties? That is where the problem of bona fide comes up,” the bench countered.<br /><br />Counsel also pleaded that Khan had bypassed the Land Ceiling Act. <br /><br />Senior counsel Mukul Rohtagi, appearing for Khan, termed the PIL as a publicity interest petition.<br /><br />At the beginning of the proceedings, the bench told the petitioners that if the court did not agree with their contention, it would impose cost on them for wasting the court’s time.<br /><br />However, after the hearing, the apex court dismissed the special leave petition without slapping any cost on the petitioners.<br /><br /><br /></p>
