Madras HC imposes Rs 50K cost on man who filed PIL against water supply co with 'malafide intent'

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Monday imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on a litigant after it found that he had filed a PIL to settle a personal score.

The first division bench of acting Chief Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice PB Balaji observed that the petitioner under the guise of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) had sought direction against a private water supply company to settle his enmity with the company.

Dismissing his petition, the court imposed the cost of 50,000 against the litigant.

The PIL was filed by SP Selvaraj from Servarayan Palayam in Erode district and sought action against a private water supplier 'Anand Water Supply' for allegedly illegally pumping groundwater beyond the permitted level and supplying it for commercial purposes.

The petitioner submitted that the private player had received a non-objection certificate from the district administration and revenue authority in 2014 to pump groundwater from an earmarked land up to a certain level.

However, the water supply company is pumping 50 thousand litres of water which is beyond the permitted level, said the petitioner. Further, the private player is supplying the illegally supplied water to hotels, schools, and colleges. Hence, the petitioner sought action against the private respondent.

The counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner had moved the PIL for personal reasons as a criminal case was lodged against him by the water supply company.

Hence, the petitioner was trying to settle the enmity with the private company through the PIL, said the counsel and sought to dismiss the petition.

The bench then asked the petitioner why the PIL was moved after a delay of nearly 10 years, since the water supply company has been pumping water since 2014.

The petitioner submitted that he was in the process of collecting evidence against the private player thus far.

However, the bench refused to accept the submission and found no bonafide intention in initiating the PIL for the interest of the public at large. Hence, the bench imposed a cost on the petitioner.