'Concealed Personal Interest': Rajasthan High Court Bars Litigant From Filing PILs In Future, Mulls Imposing ₹25 Lakh Costs
The Rajasthan High Court has come down heavily upon a petitioner who had filed a PIL over Highway weigh-bridges, after finding he had personal interest in the matter.A division bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sunil Beniwal has now not only barred the petitioner from filing any PIL in future but has also issued him a notice, asking to show cause why proceedings shall not be...
The Rajasthan High Court has come down heavily upon a petitioner who had filed a PIL over Highway weigh-bridges, after finding he had personal interest in the matter.
A division bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sunil Beniwal has now not only barred the petitioner from filing any PIL in future but has also issued him a notice, asking to show cause why proceedings shall not be initiated against him for misusing the process, and why an exemplary cost of Rs. 25 lakhs should not be imposed on him.
The PIL was filed by the petitioner alleging illegal installation and operation of royalty check posts, Dharamkantas, and weighbridges on national highways, ring roads, service roads and access roads across the state of Rajasthan. The petitioner sought urgent removal, regulation and audit of such illegal royalty nakas and weighbridges and affixation of accountability.
While the matter was being heard, specifically in relation to the weigh-bridges of one of the respondents, it was submitted that the petitioner's family was actively engaged in mining and weigh-bridges operations, and thus he had direct personal interest in the matter.
It was argued that if the operation of weigh-bridges collecting statutory royalty was stopped or disrupted, it would benefit the petitioner's family by enabling mineral carrying trucks to avoid proper royalty payments.
After hearing the contentions, the Court put forth certain queries to the petitioner, pursuant to which it was revealed that his father was engaged in mining operations, and his brother was also involved in operation of weigh-bridges used for weighing vehicles transporting minerals.
In this background, the Court held that prima facie it appeared that the petitioner might not have approached the Court entirely in a public-spirited capacity and that the present litigation could be motivated by private or commercial considerations.
The Court made a reference to Rule 385-F of the Rules of High Court of Rajasthan and highlighted that sub rule (1), (6) and (7) prescribed certain mandatory disclosures that PIL must accompany so that the Court could examine the bona fides, credibility and locus.
“As an upshot, we are compelled to observe that the petitioner appears to have a clear conflict of personal interest… present proceedings may not be entirely divorced from private or collateral considerations and that the cause of public interest has been invoked as a facade to pursue a matter in which the petitioner has a discernible personal stake.”
The Court held that if such personal interest was disclosed by the petitioner to seek leave of the court to maintain the present PIL, the situation would have been on a different footing. However, in the absence of such disclosure, the petitioner was not entitled to file a PIL even in future.
The Court directed the name of the petitioner to be converted to that of the respondent in the PIL, and since the matter involved was considered to be of public interest, the proceedings were directed to be continued while being treated as suo moto by the Court.
Title: Himmat Singh Gehlot v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 100