Allahabad High Court Imposes ₹25,000 Costs On Advocate For Suppressing His Identity & Pending Criminal Cases In PIL
The Court dismissed the plea against Daurala Sugar Mill and imposed exemplary costs for concealment of personal vendetta.
Chief Justice Arun Bhansali, Justice Kshitij Shailendra, Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) after determining that the petitioner, an Advocate, deliberately suppressed his identity as the former Chairman of the Cane Development Council to settle personal scores against Daurala Sugar Mill. Accordingly, the Bench imposed an exemplary cost of ₹25,000 on the Advocate to be deposited with the Registrar General within three weeks.
The Bench observed that by portraying himself merely as a concerned legal professional and a "passer-by". the petitioner engaged in a "game of hide and seek" with the judiciary, failing the fundamental requirement of approaching the Court with "clean hands". The Court's sharp rebuke highlighted that the litigation was a camouflage for personal vendetta, as the petitioner failed to disclose his history of administrative friction with the respondent mill and the existence of several pending criminal cases
Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra observed, “…the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and concealment of his status as Chairman of Cane Development Council at the first instance and indicating his credentials as an Advocate and a mere passer-by of the disputed rasta/rajwaha, in itself, reflects that his intention was not fair and it is only when his previous working status was brought to the notice of the Court on 09.02.2026, supplementary affidavit was filed on 16.03.2026 making disclosure of his previous engagement with the Mill. Further, false and incomplete disclosure has been made by him qua criminal cases.”.
Advocate Shantanu appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Diptiman Singh appeared for the respondent.
The petitioner, Ravindra Ahlawat, practicing as an advocate, moved the Court seeking a mandamus against the Executive Engineer and District Magistrate of Meerut. He sought the removal of alleged illegal constructions by respondent no. 5, Daurala Sugar Mill, asserting that the mill had encroached upon both sides of the Daurala lower Rajwaha (mini canal).
The petitioner claimed these encroachments blocked a road connecting numerous villages, causing significant public inconvenience. He further alleged that despite previous administrative acknowledgments of the issue in 2022, no concrete action had been taken by the irrigation department to clear the tracks.
During the initial hearing on February 9, 2026, the respondent mill produced a compilation of documents attacking the petitioner’s credentials. This led to a supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner on March 16, 2026, where he finally admitted his former role as Chairman of the Cane Development Council.
The Court held final hearings on April 28, 2026, where the respondents presented evidence of the petitioner's criminal history and official reports from January 2025 indicating that no such encroachment existed and that the path was being used conveniently by local farmers.
The Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s directives in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, 2010 AIR SCW 1029, noting that courts must verify the credentials of a petitioner and ensure no private motive exists. The Bench found that the petitioner violated Rule 1(3-A) of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules by failing to disclose his prior clashes with the mill management.
“…we are satisfied that the instant petition is a gross misuse and abuse of process of law and deserves dismissal with cost so that it may set a deterrent example to discard unscrupulous persons from invoking Writ Jurisdiction for their vested interest under the camouflage of PIL”, the Bench noted.
Accordingly, while imposing costs it directed that a failure to deposit, would result in recovery as arrears of land revenue through the Collector, Meerut. The Court also issued a stern warning to the petitioner, as an advocate, to refrain from future acts of professional or legal misconduct.
Cause Title: Ravindra Ahlawat @ Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P. and 4 others (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:96025-DB)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Shantanu, Raj Kumar Dhama, Advocates.
Respondents: Diptiman Singh, Seema Agarwal, Advocates.