Kerala High Court Imposes ₹25,000 Cost On PIL Petitioner For Suppressing Personal Interest | Stresses Disclosure of Credentials At Threshold
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Kerala Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji dismissed a Public Interest Litigation, holding that the petitioner had suppressed material facts and acted with private motives. The Court directed that costs be imposed on the petitioner, payable to the Legal Aid Fund, and further mandated that, in the event of non-payment, recovery proceedings would be initiated through the District Collector as arrears of land revenue.
The matter originated with a petition filed invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner presented himself as a citizen of India, residing in Cherthala, Alappuzha, and asserted that he had no personal interest in the dispute. His prayer sought judicial directions against two private individuals and statutory authorities in connection with property identified as Re-survey No. 302/2, Block No. 24, in Thanneermukkam Vadakku Village, Alappuzha. According to the petitioner, the said property was classified as wetland, and filling activities allegedly carried out by one of the respondents contravened the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.
The grievance was cast in the form of public interest, framed as a complaint against illegal conversion of wetland. The petitioner alleged that statutory authorities, including the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tahsildar, and Village Officer, failed in their duties to prevent unlawful reclamation. He thus sought an enquiry and remedial action against the respondents.
In response, the sixth and seventh respondents, private individuals, filed detailed affidavits challenging the bona fides of the petition. Respondent No. 7 alleged that the petitioner was, in fact, a real estate broker who had mediated the sale transaction of the same property between Respondents 6 and 7. It was further contended that the petitioner had received ₹50,000 from Respondent No. 6 and an additional ₹15,000 from Respondent No. 7 as brokerage. According to the affidavit, disputes arose when the petitioner demanded more money, and upon refusal, he resorted to filing this petition under the guise of public interest litigation.
Respondent No. 7 categorically denied allegations of illegality in land use. He pointed out that a stop memo issued by the Village Officer against Respondent No. 6 had already been challenged before the High Court in W.P.(C) No. 8020 of 2023, where a learned Single Judge had stayed the operation of the stop memo on 17 March 2023. It was further alleged that the petitioner deliberately suppressed this fact from the Court while instituting the present petition.
To substantiate his version, Respondent No. 7 produced documents, including screenshots of the bank transfer evidencing payment of ₹50,000 to the petitioner, tax receipts relating to the property, and the interim order of the Single Bench staying the stop memo. These were marked as Exhibits R7(a) to R7(c).
The State, represented through the Government Pleader, also produced a report of the Inspector of Police. The report indicated that multiple civil proceedings were pending against the petitioner, and that a warrant was outstanding in connection with a criminal case. The petitioner, however, denied the existence of criminal proceedings, stating that the cases cited were limited to proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
The record showed that the petitioner had filed numerous Right to Information (RTI) applications and complaints with various authorities, annexing their replies as exhibits. Exhibits P1 through P10 included copies of injunction orders, RTI applications, replies from the Village Officer and Police Station, and complaints lodged before the Revenue Divisional Officer and Tahsildar. These were presented by the petitioner as evidence to establish administrative inaction and illegality by private respondents.
The cumulative position was that while the petitioner sought to present the litigation as public interest, the respondents consistently maintained that it was an extension of a private dispute rooted in brokerage demands and financial transactions between the parties.
The Division Bench, upon perusal of pleadings, documents, and the record, recorded detailed observations on the nature and maintainability of the petition. It noted at the outset: “The Petitioner has suppressed the fact that he was a broker between Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 for the transaction and has received remuneration for the sale of the same property. The case of Respondent No. 7 that the Petitioner filed this petition only when his demand for more money was not met, has to be believed.”
The Court further observed that the pendency of W.P.(C) No. 8020 of 2023, challenging the stop memo, was not disclosed. “This Petition thus, is a clear instance of misuse of the Public Interest Litigation jurisdiction, where proceedings have been initiated to pursue personal motive under the guise of public interest.”
In reinforcing the principles governing public interest jurisdiction, the Bench referred extensively to precedents of the Supreme Court. Quoting from Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal (2004) 3 SCC 349, the Bench recorded: “The court has to be satisfied about: (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; and (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests: (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions.”
The judgment also recorded observations from State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu (1994) 2 SCC 481, A.P. State Financial Corporation v. Gar Re-Rolling Mills (1994) 2 SCC 647, and Buddhi Kota Subbarao v. K. Parasaran (1996) 5 SCC 530. The Bench noted: “Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions. Today people rush to courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name of public interest. They must inspire confidence in courts and among the public.”
Citing Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991) 1 SCC 598, the Bench reiterated: “Public interest litigation cannot be invoked by a person or body of persons to satisfy his or its personal grudge and enmity. If such petitions are entertained, it would amount to abuse of process of the court, preventing speedy remedy to other genuine petitioners. Personal interest cannot be enforced through the process of this Court under Article 32 in the garb of a public interest litigation.”
The Division Bench also referred to Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 1 SCC 590, noting: “Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest, an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity-seeking is not lurking.”
Further reliance was placed on Kalyaneshwari v. Union of India (2011) 3 SCC 287, wherein the Supreme Court had observed that a petition lacking bona fides and filed with ulterior motives amounts to abuse of process. The Kerala High Court quoted: “Every litigant, who approaches the Court, owes a duty to approach the Court with clean hands and disclose complete facts. A petition which lacks bona fides and is intended to settle business rivalry or augment the business of another interested company at the cost of others in the garb of PIL would be nothing but abuse of process of law.”
The Bench then adverted to State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010) 3 SCC 402, which had laid down guidelines requiring High Courts to frame rules ensuring genuine PILs while deterring mala fide ones. The Court observed that the Rules of the Kerala High Court, 1971, already regulated PIL filings but stressed that affidavits filed often merely recited stock phrases of “no personal interest.” The Bench stated: “Judicial time is not infinite and cannot be squandered by such petitions. In our view, the present Rules of 1971 may require a mandate to elaborate on the disclosures to be made in the affidavit accompanying a PIL from which the status of the public interest litigant can be ascertained at the threshold.”
After examining the record and legal principles, the Division Bench issued clear directions. It held that the petition amounted to an abuse of process, observing: “In the case at hand, the Petitioner has abused the process of law and has suppressed his personal interest in the matter. A stop memo was issued to Respondent No. 6, and it is now the subject matter of challenge in W.P.(C) No.8020 of 2023, and an interim order is granted by the learned Single Judge on 17 March 2023. It is, therefore, necessary not only to dismiss the petition, but also to follow the regime under Rule 146B of the Rules of 1971, and impose costs upon the Petitioner.”
The Bench dismissed the writ petition and imposed costs of ₹25,000 on the petitioner. It directed that the amount be deposited with the Legal Aid Fund under the Kerala State Legal Services Authority within eight weeks. The Court added: “If the amount is not so deposited by the Petitioner, upon informing so by the Registry, the District Collector, Alappuzha, will recover the same as arrears of land revenue from the Petitioner and deposit the same in the Legal Aid Fund of the High Court Legal Services Committee and place a report to the Registry for the purpose of record.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri. Sreekanth S. Nair, Advocate; Shri. Sandeep P. Johnson, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri. S. Renjith, Special Government Pleader; Shri. B. Pramod, Advocate; Shri. K.P. Jayachandran, Additional Advocate General; Shri. Athul M.V., Advocate; Shri. Ajay S. Koshy, Advocate
Case Title: Renjith Krishnan R. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:64978
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 28667 of 2024
Bench: Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar, Justice Basant Balaji
