In Brief
A housing scheme administered by a municipality under central government guidelines saw limited construction, alleged misappropriation of public funds, and receipt of excess payments to contractors. Social activists and former councillors filed public interest petitions seeking criminal proceedings. The High Court directed authorities to implement remedial steps. Contractors and municipal officials challenged this, arguing lack of standing for PIL petitioners and non-hearing of the accused. The Supreme Court held that PIL concerning housing for economically disadvantaged sections is maintainable despite litigants' political motives if the cause is genuinely public, and that officers need not be heard before issuance of remedial directions based on serious material irregularities. The Court affirmed that observations in PIL proceedings do not preclude appellants from raising defences in criminal trials.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.