T.H.Rajmohan  [Petitioner]  Vs.  The Secretary to the Government  [ Respondents]

W.P.No.18846 of 2024

(THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.)

The Madras High Court has imposed a cost of ₹20 lakhs on a litigant and barred him from filing Public Interest Litigations (PILs) for a year due to misrepresentation and suppression of material facts in a petition styled as a PIL. The petition sought to direct authorities to designate certain land as “reserved forest land” and prevent its encroachment. However, the Court found numerous discrepancies and questionable conduct on the part of the petitioner.

The case centered around a piece of land classified as “reserved forest land” since 1905. The petitioner alleged that 40.95 acres of this land were illegally de-notified and sought its reinstatement in revenue records, installation of signboards, and prevention of encroachment. The land had been assigned to Imperial Chemical Industries (India) Limited in 1942 under specific terms, but later, the lease was revoked for violations. This revocation was upheld by the Special Commissioner, though a subsequent appeal overturned the decision.

The petitioner’s affidavit, ostensibly filed to protect public interest, described him as a 67-year-old individual with an annual income exceeding ₹5 lakhs. However, the affidavit was riddled with inconsistencies, including discrepancies in age across various documents (Aadhaar and PAN cards) and contradictions in his stated income during court proceedings. Notably, the petitioner claimed he could not understand English, despite signing an affidavit and referencing documents written in the language.

The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, highlighted that the omission of material facts about the alleged de-notification of the land was intentional. This raised doubts about the petitioner’s credibility and motives. The Bench also noted potential ulterior motives, suggesting that the petitioner may have been a proxy for others orchestrating the litigation.

The respondents, represented by Senior Advocates Satish Parasaran and P. Wilson, argued that the petitioner’s actions had caused reputational and business harm to the 12th respondent, supported by news reports alleging land alienation to a private entity. These reports, although unverified, were linked to the petitioner’s claims and demonstrated the adverse consequences of filing baseless PILs.

The Court deemed it necessary to impose punitive costs to deter frivolous and malicious PILs. It dismissed the petition, imposed a fine of ₹20 lakhs, and restrained the petitioner from filing any PILs in the High Court for a year without prior permission. This judgment underscores the judiciary’s intolerance for abuse of PILs, which are meant to serve genuine public interest. By penalizing the petitioner, the Court sent a strong message against the misuse of judicial processes for personal or ulterior motives, emphasizing the need for transparency and accountability in legal filings.