Madras HC slaps Rs 20L fine on petitioner for oblique motive, suppressing facts

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court imposed Rs 20 lakh fine on a petitioner for filing a public interest litigation with oblique motive and suppressing facts.

The first division bench of Chief Justice KR Shriram and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy directed the litigant to pay Rs 10 lakh to Vishal Developers, a private builder and one of the respondents in the case, and the balance Rs 10 lakh to be deposited into the account of Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority within four weeks.

The litigant TH Rajmohan moved to quash a government order allowing Imperial Chemical Industries to sell 40.95 acres of leased land at Thirumullaivoyal, citing it is a reserved forest. He also sought direction to safeguard the forest from further encroachment.

It was submitted that Imperial Chemical leased the land in 1942.

Later, in 2000, with the help of former MLA C Gnanasekaran, the Imperial Chemical got the state sanction to convert the land into private and secured the permission to sell it.

The private chemical company sold the entire land to Gnanasekaran and his family members, said the litigant.

The former MLA later sold several parts of the land to various private builders, including Vishal Developers, said the litigant.

Additional Advocate General (AAG) J Ravindran for the State submitted that the land was converted into private land by the land administration department hence, there is no question of encroachment of government land.

Senior counsel P Wilson, appearing for the former MLA, referred the report of advocate commissioner and submitted that the entire land had been converted and developed into a township of residential buildings, hence this litigation is belated.

He contended that the litigant filed the PIL with oblique motive, hence sought to impose exemplary cost to preserve the purity and sanctity of PIL.

It is clear the petitioner failed to disclose any material and salient fact to prove his case, wrote the bench.

The bench found discrepancies in the age and annual income of the litigant, between the submitted affidavit and identity proof.

Further, the litigant submitted that he doesn’t know English but he signed the affidavit in English and also relied upon several documents which are also in English, wrote the bench. The court held that the litigant either lied in court or he has been set up as a front by somebody to orchestrate the petition.