Bombay High Court
NIKHIL DATTA RAUTversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. ITS CHIEF SECRETARY AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The public interest litigation is dismissed as the petitioner lacks bona‑fide locus standi and the petition is vague and filed for personal gain.
Summary
The petitioner, claiming to be the Palghar District President of a social organization, filed a public interest litigation seeking a stay on mining and industrial operations of numerous private respondents and police protection. The petitioner alleged rampant illegal quarrying, mining, and industrial activities in Palghar district, alleging collusion of government authorities, but provided no specific particulars. The court noted three FIRs lodged against the petitioner, which he failed to disclose, and found the petition vague, lacking specific allegations, and apparently filed for personal gain. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal, the court held that bona‑fide interest is required for locus standi in a PIL. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, refusing any further adjournments.
Issues considered
- Does the petitioner have locus standi to file the public interest litigation?
- Are the allegations in the petition sufficiently specific to warrant the relief sought?
- Should the court grant further adjournments for the petitioner’s counsel?
- Is the PIL barred as it appears to be filed for personal gain rather than public interest?
Subjects
- public interest litigation
- locus standi
- environmental law
- illegal mining
- adjournment
- abuse of process
- personal gain
Judgment
904 PIL 1.2026 (1).DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally
signed by
BALAJI
BALAJI
GOVINDRAO
GOVINDRAO PANCHAL
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.1 OF 2026
PANCHAL Date:
2026.03.05
19:54:55
+0530
Nikhil Datta Raut …Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. …Respondents
Mr. Rahul Mote, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Neha S. Bhide, GP a/w Mr. K.B. Dighe, Additional GP,
Mr. S.P. Kamble, Additional G.P. for Respondent nos.1 to 4,
11, 12 and 26.
Ms. Jaya Bagwe, for Respondent nos. 5 and 6- MPCB.
Mr. Riti Gada i/by Dua Associates for Respondent no.17.
Mr. Nitin V. Gangal a/w Namita M. Mestry for Respondent
Nos. 24, 25 and 29.
CORAM: SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ &
GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.
DATE : 17th FEBRUARY 2026.
P.C.:
Mr. Rahul Mote, the learned counsel for the petitioner
is seeking adjournment for producing additional documents
on record. He also seeks an adjournment on the ground
that his learned assisting counsel has gone to Uttar
Pradesh to attend marriage of Advocate Akshay Mishra. It
was on 27th January 2026, the hearing of this Public
Interest Litigation was adjourned on the ground that Mr.
Rahul Mote, the learned counsel has met with an accident.
We are not inclined to grant any further adjournments in
the matter.
2. In this Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner who
claims that he is the Palghar-District President of a social
Page 1 of 4
Dusane
904 PIL 1.2026 (1).DOC
organisation, namely ‘Anti-Corruption Jan Aakrosh’, has
sought the following prayers:
"(a) Grant an immediate stay on all mining, quarrying, and
industrial operations of the private Respondents (Nos. 13 to
25) mentioned in this petition.
(b) Direct the Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 5, and 6 to
immediately seal the premises of the said illegal and
polluting units.
(c) Direct the Respondent No.4 (Superintendent of Police,
Palghar) to provide immediate police protection to the
Petitioner"
(d) Pass any such other and further orders as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and expedient in the interest of justice,
equity, and good conscience."
3. The petitioner has made as many as 29 persons and
corporate entities as party-respondents. He has grievances
against Tahsildar of Palghar, different village Panchayats,
Regional Transport Officer, Deputy Conservator of Forests,
Circle Officer of Taluka Wada. He has also added Blueberry
Agro Products Private Limited, Magicrete Building Solutions
Private Limited, Super Sand Stone, Zeeco India Private
Limited, Richtech Green Energy, Moltus Research
Laboratory Private Limited, Ozyer Chemicals L.L.P.,
Wealthy Crop Science Private Limited, Adhikari Readymix
Concrete, Nidhi Realtors, K. K. Constructions etc. which are
the corporate entities as party respondents. In this Public
Interest Litigation, the petitioner states that there has been
rampant illegal stone quarrying, unchecked mining of black
salt, illegal operation of RMC plants, illegal extraction of
minerals and unauthorized industrial operations
throughout Palghar district. This is done with the active
collusion of government authorities to avoid paying any
Page 2 of 4
Dusane
904 PIL 1.2026 (1).DOC
royalty, tax or fees to the government resulting in colossal
financial loss to the State. The learned counsel for the
petitioner refers to the minutes of the meeting dated
13th February 2024 of the Deputy Collector, Palghar and
submits that the directions issued on the complaints made
by the petitioner have not been implemented.
4. We find no merit in this petition. Mr. K.B. Dighe, the
learned Additional Government Pleader states that there
are three FIRs bearing FIR No.40 of 2022 dated
2nd February 2022, FIR no.460 of 2022 dated 7 th December
2022 and FIR no.154 of 2024 dated 24 th March 2024 lodged
against the petitioner by the respondent no.13.
Suppression of this vital information by the petitioner is yet
another reason to dismiss this Public Interest Litigation.
The PIL is vague and bereft of particulars. As regards the
different corporate entities and the respondent-authority,
no specific allegation has been made except stating that
permission to Super Sand Stone was illegally granted to it.
Similar allegation is made against Zeeco India Pvt. Ltd. that
certain heavy industries are operating in the Eco-sensitive
zone. The very nature of the relief sought by the petitioner
against the array of parties gives a prima facie indication
that this PIL has been filed with oblique motive and
personal gain. It is settled law, as held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in “Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West
Bengal”1, that a person acting bona fide and having
1 (2004) 3 SCC 349
Page 3 of 4
Dusane
904 PIL 1.2026 (1).DOC
sufficient interest in the proceedings of Public Interest
Litigation shall alone have locus standi and the petition filed
for personal gain or any other oblique considerations
cannot be entertained.
5. In view of the above, Public Interest Litigation no.1 of
2026 is dismissed.
[GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]
Page 4 of 4
Dusane
Checking your session…