Allahabad High Court Flags Trend Of Filing PILs Without Due Research, Upholds 75K Cost On Litigant
Image: Zia Rizvi
While upholding the cost of Rs. 75,000 imposed by the Single Judge in a PIL under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, a division bench of the Allahabad High Court observed that more Public Interest Litigations are being filed to wreck vengeance on parties rather than for public cause.
In doing so the Court also observed that the PILs were being filed without due research and based on incomplete facts.
Appellant filed a PIL seeking execution of an order passed under Section 38(2) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 regarding removal of encroachment on a pond. Respondent, therein, informed the Court that the order impugned had already been set aside by the High Court in another writ petition.
Observing that the petitioner had not approached the Court with clean hands, Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery had imposed a cost of Rs. 75,000 on him. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a special appeal against the order of the Single Judge on grounds that he was unaware of the fact that the order had already been set aside by the Court. It was argued that despite several representations seeking enforcement of the order, the appellant was never informed that the order had been set aside.
The division bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar in its order observed that though the appellant claimed himself to be a newspaper editor and working for the cause of public, he did not carry out any research or investigation regarding the status of the order before filing the PIL. It was held that appellant's claim that he was unaware of the order showed clear lack of investigation/ research on his part.
It observed,
“The practise of filing of P.I.L. without due research and investigation, only based on incomplete facts has now assumed a huge proportion, wherein large number of petitions are filed, which are not in the nature of public interest and essentially seek to wreck vengeance against the respondents and/or are based on private interest and/or personal disputes including disputes pertaining to service matters and therefore, once it is established on record that the P.I.L. which was filed, pertains to an order which already stood set aside by the High Court, the imposition of cost by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted.”
Further, the Court observed that the order of the Court directing that the cost be deposited with the District Legal Service Authority was in public interest.
Accordingly, the special appeal was dismissed.
Case Title: Ashish Kumar v. Chairman, Board Of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, Prayagraj and 6 others [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1024 of 2024]