Allahabad High Court
RAVINDRA AHLAWAT @ RAVINDRA KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 25,000 as a gross misuse and abuse of the process of law.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court examined a public‑interest litigation filed by Advocate Ravindra Ahlawat seeking removal of alleged encroachments by Daurala Sugar Mill on a canal road. The Court found that the petitioner had concealed his prior role as Chairman of the Cane Development Council and had provided incomplete information about pending criminal cases. The respondents produced inspection reports showing no encroachment and demonstrated that the mill had permission to use the land. Citing Supreme Court precedents on the misuse of PILs, the Court held that the petition was filed with ulterior motives and constituted an abuse of process. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and the petitioner was ordered to pay costs of Rs. 25,000.
Issues considered
- Whether the petition qualifies as a bona‑fide public‑interest litigation.
- Whether the petitioner disclosed his full credentials and pending criminal matters.
- Whether there is any illegal encroachment by the sugar mill on the canal road.
- Whether the petition constitutes an abuse of the court's process and warrants dismissal with cost.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 323, 386, 504, 506
Subjects
- public interest litigation
- abuse of process
- encroachment
- civil procedure
- costs
- standing
- credibility
- criminal cases
- irrigation canal
- misuse of PIL
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 331 of 2026
Ravindra Ahlawat @ Ravindra Kumar
…..Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and 4 others
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shantanu, Raj Kumar Dhama
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Diptiman Singh, Seema
Agarwal, S.C.
Chief Justice's Court
HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
1. This petition, purportedly in public interest, has been filed
by an Advocate praying for a direction to respondents no. 2 and 3,
i.e. Executive Engineer, Meerut Khand, Ganga Canal/Irrigation
Department, Meerut and District Magistrate, Meerut to remove
illegal encroachment made by respondent no. 5, i.e., Daurala
Sugar Mill, Meerut (‘ the Mill’) over both sides of road of Daurala
lower Rajwaha (Mini Canal) passing by the Mill, situated at Tehsil
Sardhana, District Meerut.
2
WPIL No. - 331 of 2026
2. Case of the petitioner is that Daurala lower Rajwaha is
passing by the Mill and the road on both sides thereof has been
encroached by the Mill by raising illegal constructions and since
the road/rasta/track of both sides of the canal connects a large
number of villages, encroachment is causing great inconvenience
to the villagers. Further case is that on certain applications moved
by the petitioner from time to time seeking to remove the
encroachment, no action was taken by the respondents, except that
on 05.12.2022, the Assistant Engineer of Ganga Canal, Meerut
had indicated issuance of instructions for removal of
encroachment, however, nothing happened thereafter and,
therefore, direction as prayed for, be issued.
3. When the matter was initially heard on 09.02.2026, learned
counsel appearing for respondent no. 5, the Mill, filed a
compilation of certain documents while making serious
allegations against the petitioner. Copy of the compilation was
supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner granting him
time to seek instructions in the matter. Thereafter, a supplementary
affidavit dated 16.03.2026 was filed by the petitioner and the
matter was finally heard on 28.04.2026.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made submissions
that despite making an indication in the year 2022 regarding
encroachment made by respondent no. 5 and instructions issued to
Ziledar to remove the same, nothing has happened so far and all
the applications moved by the petitioner from time to time have
gone in vein. Reference was made to various applications and
photographs on record.
3
WPIL No. - 331 of 2026
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no. 5 has
attacked the credentials of the petitioner with reference to
documents filed by him by submitting that the petitioner was
working as Chairman of Cane Development Council and he
always remained involved in multifarious activities of such nature
which resulted in lodging of various First Information Reports
against him. It is further submitted that the petitioner was found
guilty in the inquiry conducted in relation to his actions, wherein
he was purportedly acting for welfare of farmers and an order was
passed on 12.04.2018 withdrawing his authorization. Challenge
laid by him to the said order by means of Writ – C No. 39738 of
2019 was turned down by this Court by dismissing the said writ
petition by order dated 09.12.2019. Details of following criminal
cases, lodged against the petitioner from time to time, have also
been given:-
(i) FIR No. 1022 of 2017, under Sections 504, 307 and 506
IPC, Police Station Sardhana, District Meerut.
(ii) FIR No. 0294 of 2019, under Sections 506, 323 and 386
IPC, Police Station Daurala, District Meerut.
(iii) FIR No. 0412 of 2019, under Sections 504, 307 and
323 IPC, Police Station Daurala, District Meerut.
6. It is, therefore, contended that the PIL has been filed by the
petitioner having all mala fides against the officials of the Mill in
question to settle his personal scores and is liable to be dismissed
on this ground alone. As regards allegations of encroachment,
submissions have been made that permission was granted to the
Mill on 25.06.2018 by the Chief Engineer (Irrigation) to utilize
strip of land (Rajwaha) in public interest subject to certain
conditions indicated in the office memorandum of the said date,
which conditions were never violated by the Mill and in the
4
WPIL No. - 331 of 2026
inspection conducted on 26.12.2024, no encroachment was found
existent and, taking note thereof, it was indicated in a letter dated
10.01.2025 issued by the Executive Engineer that even vehicles of
farmers were conveniently moving from Rajwaha.
7. To these submissions made on behalf of respondent no. 5,
counsel for the petitioner, with reference to the supplementary
affidavit, has submitted that in all criminal cases, final report has
been submitted by the Investigating Agency and, therefore, no
criminal case is pending, however, the said statement has been
denied by counsel for respondent no. 5 contending that matters are
still pending before the criminal court, either in furtherance of
submission of final reports or otherwise and status reports in
relation to the cases registered at Crime Nos. 412 of 2019 and
1022 of 2017 have been placed before this Court, wherefrom
pendency of such matters before the competent criminal court and
continuous fixation of dates therein, stand reflected.
8. It is further submitted on behalf of respondent no. 5 that the
Mill is functional since 1932 and over a period of more than 90
years, no one has ever raised any objection regarding alleged
encroachment or inconvenience and it is only the petitioner who,
after termination of his engagement as Chairman of Cane
Development Council, is bent upon harassing the management of
the Mill so as to lay pressure on the officials with whom the
petitioner has remained in clash owing to his own unlawful
activities, description whereof is contained in the First
Information Reports brought on record.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find that
the petitioner did not disclose his credentials in the petition except
5
WPIL No. - 331 of 2026
indicating that he is an advocate and passer-by of the disputed
rasta. It was only when his credentials were attacked by means of
compilation dated 09.02.2026, the petitioner filed supplementary
affidavit admitting that he was working as Chairman of Cane
Development Council for the period w.e.f. June, 2016 upto 2021.
10. As regards criminal cases, though stand has been taken in
supplementary affidavit that in all the first information reports,
final reports were submitted by the police and were duly accepted
by the trial court and a copy of order dated 13.12.2021 passed by
the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 3, Meerut
accepting the final report in Crime No. 412 of 2019 has been
annexed, the petitioner has not disclosed that except the said one
matter, other matters are pending before the courts in two other
cases for acceptance/rejection of the final report and this fact
having been brought to the notice of the Court on behalf of
respondent no. 5, makes the intention of the petitioner clear that
he is playing a game of hide and seek from the Court.
11. In the opinion of the Court, the petitioner has not
approached this Court with clean hands and concealment of his
status as Chairman of Cane Development Council at the first
instance and indicating his credentials as an Advocate and a mere
passer-by of the disputed rasta/rajwaha, in itself, reflects that his
intention was not fair and it is only when his previous working
status was brought to the notice of the Court on 09.02.2026,
supplementary affidavit was filed on 16.03.2026 making
disclosure of his previous engagement with the Mill. Further, false
and incomplete disclosure has been made by him qua criminal
cases.
6
WPIL No. - 331 of 2026
12. Even as regards allegations of encroachment made by
respondent no. 5 causing inconvenience to public, we are not
inclined to accept the same in light of the documents brought on
record by respondent no. 5 wherein, based upon inspection and
inquiry, it has been reported and accepted that there is no
encroachment and no inconvenience is being caused to the
farmers, who are conveniently using the rasta.
13. As regards petitions filed in the nature of public interest
litigation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in State of Uttaranchal vs.
Balwant Singh Chaufal, 2010 AIR SCW 1029, after placing
reliance on various judgments, in order to ensure that Writ
jurisdiction may not be misused and abused by the unscrupulous
litigants, issued various directions including those contained in
paragraph 198 of the judgment, as under:-
“198. In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, it has
become imperative to issue the following directions:-
(1) The courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and
effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous
considerations.
(2) Instead of every individual judge devising his own
procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it
would be appropriate for each High Court to properly
formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and
discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives.
Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not
yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three
months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed
to ensure that a copy of the Rules prepared by the High Court
is sent to the Secretary General of this court immediately
thereafter.
(3) The courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the
petitioner before entertaining a P.I.L.
(4) The court should be prima facie satisfied regarding the
correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a
PIL.
7
WPIL No. - 331 of 2026
(5) The court should be fully satisfied that substantial public
interest is involved before entertaining the petition.
(6) The court should ensure that the petition which involves
larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given
priority over other petitions.
(7) The courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that
the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public
injury. The court should also ensure that there is no personal
gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public
interest litigation.
(8) The court should also ensure that the petitions filed by
busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be
discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting
similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the
petitions filed for extraneous considerations.”
14. The Allahabad High Court, in furtherance of the directions
issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, incorporated amendment in
Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Rules and added sub-rule (3-A)
therein, which reads as under:-
“(3-A) In addition to satisfying the requirements of the other rules in
this chapter, the petitioner seeking to file a Public Interest Litigation,
should precisely and specifically state, in the affidavit to be sworn by
him giving his credentials, the public cause he is seeking to espouse;
that he has no personal or private interest in the matter; that there is no
authoritative pronouncement by the Supreme Court or High Court on
the question raised; and that the result of the litigation will not lead to
any undue gain to himself or anyone associated with him, or any
undue loss to any person, body of persons or the State.”
15. The amended Rule clearly mandates that the petitioner
seeking to file Public Interest Litigation petition should precisely
and specifically disclose his credentials and, therefore, in case, the
said requirement is not fulfilled by the petitioner, the High Court
would be obliged to deal with such non-compliance and to test
possibility of abuse and misuse of process of law by such litigants.
16. In Janata Dal vs. H.S. Chowdhary, (1992) 4 SCC 305, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that only a person acting
8
WPIL No. - 331 of 2026
bonafide and having sufficient interest in the proceedings of
Public Interest Litigation will alone have a locus standi and can
approach the Court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy,
suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but not a
person for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any
oblique consideration. It was further observed that vexatious
petitions under the colour of PIL brought before the Court for
vindicating any personal grievances, deserve rejection at the
threshold.
17. In Dr. B. Singh vs. Union of India and others, (2004) 3 SCC
363, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it would be
desirable for the courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and
dismiss them with cost so that the message goes in the right
direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the
approval of the Courts. It was also observed that when there is
material to show that a petition styled as a Public Interest
Litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal disputes
or vendetta to bring to terms a person, not of ones liking, or gain
publicity or a facade for blackmail, said petition has to be thrown
out.
18. In Buddhi Kota Subbarai (Dr.) Vs. K. Parasaran, (1996) 5
SCC 530), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that no litigant
has a right to unlimited drought on the court time and public
money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he
wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence
to file misconceived or frivolous petitions.
19. In Prestige Lights Limited Vs. State Bank of India, (2007) 8
SCC 449, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that a prerogative
9
WPIL No. - 331 of 2026
remedy is not a matter of course and in exercising extraordinary
power, a Writ Court will indeed bear in mind the conduct of the
party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not
disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise
guilty of misleading the Court, the Court may dismiss the action
without adjudicating the matter. It was further observed that the
rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter
unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by
deceiving it and the very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in
disclosure of true, complete and correct facts.
20. In K.D Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and
others, (2008) 12 SCC 481, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held
that no litigant can play "hide and seek" with the courts or adopt
"pick and choose" and one should come with candid facts and
clean breast. Suppression or concealment of material facts is
forbidden to a litigant or even as a technique of advocacy. In such
cases, the Court is duty bound to discharge rule nisi and such
applicant is required to be dealt with for contempt of Court for
abusing the process of the court.
21. In view of the above discussion, we are satisfied that the
instant petition is a gross misuse and abuse of process of law and
deserves dismissal with cost so that it may set a deterrent example
to discard unscrupulous persons from invoking Writ Jurisdiction
for their vested interest under the camouflage of PIL.
22. The petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 25,000/- (rupees
twenty five thousand).
23. The petitioner is directed to deposit the cost before the
Registrar General of this Court within three weeks from the date
10
WPIL No. - 331 of 2026
of this order, failing which, respondent No. 5 may move an
application before the Registrar General who will then send a
copy of this order alongwith his letter to the Collector, Meerut to
issue a recovery citation against the petitioner for recovering the
said sum as arrears of land revenue within one month from the
date of receipt of copy of the order.
24. Since the petitioner is an Advocate and has also been
involved in criminal cases based upon allegations which we do not
want to indicate in this order, we suggest as well as warn him not
to indulge in such acts which may give rise to harsher action by
this Court.
(Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)
April 28, 2026
Sazia
Digitally signed by :-
SAZIA AQUIL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…