The Allahabad High Court, in a division bench ruling, upheld a ₹75,000 cost imposed by a Single Judge on a petitioner who filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

The Court highlighted the increasing misuse of PILs for personal grievances or vendettas rather than genuine public causes.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar observed that the petitioner failed to conduct adequate research or verify the facts before filing the PIL.

The case involved a petition seeking enforcement of an order under Section 38(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, for the removal of encroachment on a pond. However, the respondent informed the Court that the order had already been set aside in a separate writ petition, rendering the PIL baseless.

Advocate Gyanendra Kumar Mishra appeared for the Appellant, and Central Standing Counsel (CSC) Sher Bahadur Singh appeared for the Respondent.

The petitioner, claiming to be a newspaper editor working for the public good, argued that he was unaware the order had been quashed and blamed this on the respondents’ failure to inform him. The Court dismissed this argument, emphasizing that it was the petitioner’s responsibility to investigate and verify the status of the order before initiating litigation.

“The practise of filing of P.I.L. without due research and investigation, only based on incomplete facts has now assumed a huge proportion, wherein large number of petitions are filed, which are not in the nature of public interest and essentially seek to wreck vengeance against the respondents and/or are based on private interest and/or personal disputes including disputes pertaining to service matters and therefore, once it is established on record that the P.I.L. which was filed, pertains to an order which already stood set aside by the High Court, the imposition of cost by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted,” the Court noted.

The Bench reiterated the importance of ensuring that PILs are filed with bona fide intent and supported by thorough research. It stressed that frivolous or ill-prepared PILs burden the judiciary and divert attention from legitimate public interest cases.

The Court also upheld the Single Judge’s decision to direct the petitioner to deposit the cost with the District Legal Service Authority, emphasizing that such penalties serve the larger public interest by deterring misuse of the judicial process.

The Division Bench dismissed the petitioner’s special appeal, affirming the Single Judge’s order and the imposition of costs. "In that view of the matter, no case for interference in the order impugned is made out. The appeal is therefore, dismissed," the Court ordered.

Cause Title: Ashish Kumar v. Chairman, Board Of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, Prayagraj and 6 others [Neutral Citation No. 2024:AHC:184074-DB]

Appearance:-

Appellant: Advocates Gyanendra Kumar Mishra, Ramesh Kumar Mishra

Respondent: C.S.C., Sher Bahadur Singh, Advocate Ramanand Pandey (A.C.S.C)

Click here to read/download the Order


Chief Justice Arun BhansaliJustice Vikas BudhwarAllahabad High CourtPublic Interest Litigation

Sukriti Mishra