Advocate’s PIL Backfires: Court Finds Suppression of Facts, Imposes ₹25,000 Exemplary Costs

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation alleging illegal encroachment by a sugar mill, holding that the petition was driven by personal motives rather than genuine public interest. In Ravindra Ahlawat v. State of U.P.& 4 ors, a Bench led by Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra found that the petitioner, an advocate, failed to disclose material facts, including his prior role as Chairman of the Cane Development Council and his past disputes with the respondent mill.

The petition claimed that the Daurala Sugar Mill had encroached upon land along a canal road, causing inconvenience to villagers. However, official inspection reports placed on record indicated that no such encroachment existed and that the route remained accessible for public use.

The Court observed that the petitioner had approached the Court without “clean hands” and had engaged in selective disclosure, describing his conduct as a “game of hide and seek.” It further noted that the petitioner did not fully disclose pending criminal proceedings, thereby violating the mandatory requirement of transparency in PIL filings.

Relying on established principles governing public interest litigation, the Court held that such proceedings cannot be used as a tool for personal vendetta. Declaring the petition a misuse of judicial process, the Court dismissed it with costs of ₹25,000 and warned the petitioner against future abuse of writ jurisdiction.