“Either Lied In Court Or Has Been Set Up”: Madras High Court Imposes ₹20 Lakh Cost On Litigant, Restrains Him From Filing PILs For 1 Year

The Madras High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation filed by a 62-year-old man and imposed a cost of Rs. 20 Lakh on him. The court also restrained the PIL petitioner from filing any PILs in the court without prior permission for 1 year. The bench of Chief Justice KR Shriram and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy ordered so after noting that the petition was not Bonafide and that the petitioner had willingly failed to disclose material information. “Only two inferences may be drawn in this regard. Either the petitioner lied in Court or he has been set up as a front by somebody to orchestrate the petition. In either case, it is just and necessary to impose costs on the petitioner so as to deter the filing of petitions, particularly by way of PILs, misstating or suppressing facts with oblique motives,” the court observed. The court was hearing a petition by T H Rajmohan challenging a Government Order issued by the Revenue Department allowing alienation of 40.97 acres of land. The petitioner sought directions to the authorities to mark an extend of 13 acres of land as reserved forest land in all revenue records and put up sign boards indicating that the same and to prevent any person from trespassing into the property. The State however opposed the plea and submitted that the entire extend of land was denotified in the year 1962. It was submitted, by relying on the counters filed by the Principal Secretary to Government and the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Environment, Climate Change and Forests Department that the lands specified ceased to be reserved forest lands pursuant to a GO Ms. No 3676. The respondents also questioned the bonafides of the petitioner and submitted that he had been prosecuted for encroaching upon Government land. The court noted that while the Government Order was issued in the year 2007, the petition was filed only in July 2024, after a delay of 17 years without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for the delay. The court also noted that while the affidavit mentioned the age of the petitioner as 67 years, he had deposed before the court that he was 63 year old and as per his PAN card he was 62 years. The court further noted that there was mismatch between the affidavit of the petitioner and the documents produced by him with respect to his income. Most importantly, the court noted that in his 35 page affidavit, which contained 34 paragraphs, the petitioner had failed to disclose that the lands had been de-notified in the year 1962. Though the petitioner contended that the de-notification did not cover the entire extend of the land, the court wondered on why the petitioner had remained completely silent about the de-notification. This omission of a material fact, in the court's opinion was intention. The court also noted that while the petitioner deposed that he could read but not understand English, most of the documents relied upon by the petitioner was in English. Thus, considering the facts, the court opined that the petition was filed with oblique motive. The court thus directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 10 Lakh to Vishal Developers, whose development projects were hindered due to the petitions. The court also directed the petitioner to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority and to file an affidavit in compliance of the order. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Samir S. Shah for Mr.S.John Josh, Mr.T.V.Kamalanathan & Mr.P.Saravanan Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. J.Ravindran, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr.A.Edwin Prabhakar, State Government Pleader assisted by Mr.M.Habeeb Rahman, Government Advocate, Mr.Dr.R.Seenivasan, Special Government Pleader (Forest), Mr.R.A.Gopinath, Standing (Corporation), Mr.R.Thamaraiselvan, Standing Counsel (CMDA), Mrs.V.Sudha, Government Counsel, Mr.Satish Parasaran, Senior Advocate for M/s.Ganesh & Ganesh, Mr.P.Wilson, Senior Advocate Mr.Kuberan for for M/s.Rank Associates, Mr.R.Tholgappian Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 470 Case Title: T. H. Rajmohan v The Secretary to the Government and Others Case No: W.P.No.18846 of 2024Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment

“Either Lied In Court Or Has Been Set Up”: Madras High Court Imposes ₹20 Lakh Cost On Litigant, Restrains Him From Filing PILs For 1 Year

Upasana Sajeev

Tags