Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar, Justice Basant Balaji, Kerala High Court
No Person Can Claim As Of Right To Be Treated As Public Interest Litigant: Kerala High Court Imposes ₹25K Costs While Dismissing PIL
|The High Court said judicial time is not infinite and cannot be squandered by such petitions.
The Kerala High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by a real estate broker as he suppressed his personal interest in the matter and imposed a cost of Rs. 25000.
The Petitioner filed an Public Interest Litigation to conduct an enquiry with respect to certain property, which according to him was a wetland.
The Bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji observed, “In the case at hand, the Petitioner has abused the process of law and has suppressed his personal interest in the matter…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 object of Rule 146B is not to stifle genuine Public Interest Litigations, but to prevent the abuse of this jurisdiction by unscrupulous petitioners. It is to keep this jurisdiction robust that such petitioners have to be strictly dealt with.”
Advocate Sreekanth S.Nair represented the Petitioner, while Advocate S. Renjith represented the Respondents.
Case Brief
The Petitioner filed an Public Interest Litigation to conduct an enquiry with respect to certain property. According to the Petitioner, the said property was a wetland. The Petitioner stated on oath that he had no personal or private interest in the matter.
However, one of the Respondents claimed that the Petitioner has a personal grudge against the Private Respondents which he masquerades as a public interest. It was alleged that the Petitioner was a real estate broker who brokered the sale of the said property from one Respondent to another. It was contended that the Petitioner started demanding more money from the Private Respondents, and since they refused, he resorted to file this petition.
Court’s Observation
The Court noted that the Petitioner suppressed the fact that he was a broker between Private Respondents for the transaction and has received remuneration for the sale of the same property in question as the PIL. The Petitioner also did not disclose the pendency of other proceedings, thus, the Court was of the opinion that the Petitioner misused the Public Interest Litigation jurisdiction.
“No person can claim, as of right, that he has to be treated as a public interest litigant. To maintain the purity of this jurisdiction, the Court has to satisfy itself regarding the credentials of the petitioner and guard against its misuse for oblique motives. Rigorous scrutiny and deterrent action are, therefore, required to ensure that unscrupulous elements do not sully the Court process”, the Kerala High Court observed.
The Court also expressed its concern with regard to the fact many PILs were filed to address social issues contains no particulars, offering no substantial assistance to the Court. Petitions are often filed on complex technical matters where the Petitioners have no expertise. “Such poorly presented petitions are detrimental to the very cause they seek to espouse. Judicial time is not infinite and cannot be squandered by such petitions”, added the Court.
While discussing the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971, the Court observed that object of Rule 146B was not to stifle genuine Public Interest Litigations, but to prevent the abuse of this jurisdiction by unscrupulous petitioners. It was to keep this jurisdiction robust that such Petitioners have to be strictly dealt with. Therefore, the Court imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000/- while dismissing the PIL.
Accordingly, the PIL was dismissed.
Cause Title: Renjith Krishnan R. V. State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:64978)
Appearance
Petitioner: Sreekanth S.Nair, Sandeep P Johnson, Advocates
Respondents: Advocates S. Renjith-Spl.Gp, B.Pramod K.P.Jayachandran, Addl. Advocate General, Athul M.V. ,Ajay S. Koshy