<p>The Supreme Court on Thursday imposed Rs 5 lakh as an exemplary cost on a social worker for abusing the process of law by filing a PIL for a ban on soft drinks - Coca-Cola and Thums Up.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta and Ajay Rastogi noted that the petition has been filed without the petitioner having any technical knowledge on the subject. </p>.<p>"The source of his assertions has not been substantiated. No justification or explanation is forthcoming during the submissions of senior advocate SP Singh, on why two specific brands in particular are chosen to be the target of the proceedings," the bench said. </p>.<p>The court said the petition has been filed for extraneous reasons and the invocation of the jurisdiction under Article 32 was an abuse of the process.</p>.<p>Petitioner Umedsinh P Chavda sought an order, prohibiting the sale and use of Coca-Cola, Thums up, soft beverages and also apprising people at large not to drink them, claiming the drinks to be detrimental to the cause of health.</p>.<p>He also sought a direction to the Centre to submit complete analytical report and scientific approval by a scientist in providing license of sale and use of liquid items like Coca-Cola, and Thums Up.</p>.<p>After petitioner's counsel failed to explain his assertions, the bench said, "we have come to the conclusion that invocation of the jurisdiction under Article 32 is not a bona fide recourse to the jurisdiction in a public interest litigation. Consequently, besides dismissing the petition, an order directing the imposition of exemplary costs is necessary."</p>.<p>The court directed the petitioner to deposit cost of Rs 5 lakh within one month with the registry for disbursal to SC Advocates-on-Record Association.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Thursday imposed Rs 5 lakh as an exemplary cost on a social worker for abusing the process of law by filing a PIL for a ban on soft drinks - Coca-Cola and Thums Up.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta and Ajay Rastogi noted that the petition has been filed without the petitioner having any technical knowledge on the subject. </p>.<p>"The source of his assertions has not been substantiated. No justification or explanation is forthcoming during the submissions of senior advocate SP Singh, on why two specific brands in particular are chosen to be the target of the proceedings," the bench said. </p>.<p>The court said the petition has been filed for extraneous reasons and the invocation of the jurisdiction under Article 32 was an abuse of the process.</p>.<p>Petitioner Umedsinh P Chavda sought an order, prohibiting the sale and use of Coca-Cola, Thums up, soft beverages and also apprising people at large not to drink them, claiming the drinks to be detrimental to the cause of health.</p>.<p>He also sought a direction to the Centre to submit complete analytical report and scientific approval by a scientist in providing license of sale and use of liquid items like Coca-Cola, and Thums Up.</p>.<p>After petitioner's counsel failed to explain his assertions, the bench said, "we have come to the conclusion that invocation of the jurisdiction under Article 32 is not a bona fide recourse to the jurisdiction in a public interest litigation. Consequently, besides dismissing the petition, an order directing the imposition of exemplary costs is necessary."</p>.<p>The court directed the petitioner to deposit cost of Rs 5 lakh within one month with the registry for disbursal to SC Advocates-on-Record Association.</p>
