After years of litigation and repeated attempts to force police action, the Gujarat High Court has firmly shut the door on a petition filed by a party-in-person alleging serious irregularities in construction near Surat Airport. The court not only dismissed the plea but also imposed costs of ₹25,000, calling the petition an abuse of the judicial process.
The judgment was delivered by Justice M. R. Mengdey on February 3, 2026, after reserving the matter earlier in January.
Read also:- Rajasthan HC Overturns CRPF Dismissal, Says Short Absence Can’t Be Called Desertion
Background of the Case
The case traces back to complaints made by the petitioner, Vishwas Sudhanshu Bhamburkar, who alleged that several builders had obtained No Objection Certificates (NOCs) from the Airports Authority of India using incorrect site coordinates. According to him, the buildings were later constructed at locations far from what was approved, posing a risk to aviation safety at Surat Airport.
The petitioner approached multiple authorities over the years - the local police, senior police officials, the magistrate court, and even the Supreme Court - seeking registration of an FIR against the builders for cheating and forgery.
When police declined to register an FIR, he moved the magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, asking for a court-directed investigation. That request was rejected, though the magistrate decided to treat the application as a private complaint and proceed with inquiry.
Unhappy with this, the petitioner again approached the High Court.
What the Petitioner Argued
Arguing in person, the petitioner maintained that once a complaint discloses a cognizable offence, the police have no choice but to register an FIR. He relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lalita Kumari, saying police action without FIR was illegal.
He also accused the magistrate of ignoring settled law and went further to seek directions for disciplinary action and training of the judicial officer.
At one point during arguments, he remarked that constitutional courts were failing to enforce Supreme Court judgments, a statement that drew visible disapproval from the bench.
Read also:- Supreme Court Restores Membership Rights in Mumbai Housing Society Dispute Over Peddar Road Flat
State’s Stand
The State government strongly opposed the petition. The public prosecutor pointed out that the same reliefs had already been rejected earlier by both the High Court and the Supreme Court.
“This is nothing but a successive round of litigation with identical prayers,” the State argued, adding that judicial orders cannot be treated as contempt merely because a litigant disagrees with them.
Court’s Observations
Justice Mengdey made it clear that the petition was not maintainable. The court noted that the magistrate had acted well within his powers by choosing to examine the complainant instead of ordering police investigation.
“The Magistrate has committed no wrong by treating the application as a complaint,” the court observed, explaining that the law allows such a course when immediate investigation is not justified.
Importantly, the court pointed out that while construction deviations were found, there was no material to show that forged documents were submitted to obtain the NOCs. Even the Airports Authority’s affidavit did not allege forgery.
The judge was particularly critical of the tone used by the petitioner in court filings and oral submissions. The bench noted that several statements were “contemptuous by their very nature” and appeared intended to lower the dignity of constitutional courts.
Read also:- Karnataka High Court Quashes Police Ban on Speakers at Hindu Sammelana in Belagavi, Orders
Decision of the Court
In its final ruling, the Gujarat High Court dismissed the petition, calling it frivolous and an abuse of the process of law. A cost of ₹25,000 was imposed on the petitioner.
The court also directed that a notice be issued to the petitioner to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him, citing repeated derogatory remarks against the judiciary.
The matter ended with the court ordering that copies of the judgment be forwarded to the appropriate registry authorities for further action.
Case Title: Vishwas Sudhanshu Bhamburkar vs State of Gujarat
Case No.: Special Criminal Application No. 8358 of 2023
Decision Date: 3 February 2026
