MP High Court: Petitioner Fined Rs 10,000 For PIL Abuse Process

• The Madhya Pradesh High Court imposed Rs 10,000 costs on Rishi Parashar for abusing the legal process.
• Parashar attempted to convert his Public Interest Litigation (PIL) regarding the Patan Kanera dam project into a private petition late in the proceedings.
• The court found that the litigation had stalled the important Patan Kanera dam project in Seoni for seven years since 2019.
• The bench deemed the petitioner's move, made as the case neared conclusion, as "exactly contrary to a previous application" and harmful to public interest.
• The costs were ordered to be paid to the M.P. State Legal Aid Services Authority within 30 days.

Lawyers should advise clients that attempting to convert a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) into a private petition late in the proceedings, particularly when it has stalled a public project, will likely be deemed an abuse of process by Indian courts, leading to significant costs and adverse rulings.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently imposed a penalty of Rs 10,000 on a petitioner who attempted to convert his own Public Interest Litigation (PIL) into a private petition late in the legal process. This action was deemed an "abuse of the process of law" by the court. The petitioner, Rishi Parashar, had initiated the litigation that ultimately stalled the Patan Kanera dam project in Seoni, a critical infrastructure development, for seven years.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Alpesh Y. Kogje and Justice Vivek Jain presided over the case. The petition, originally filed in 2019, concerned the Patan Kanera Irrigation Project. Parashar had sought various directives from the court, including an order for the State to construct the project according to a specific layout plan he advocated, the annulment of an order dated September 16, 2019, and a mandate for an independent inspection before the cancellation of the sanctioned plan. He also requested the production of records related to communications from June 11 and June 24, 2019.

The court's decision on November 4, 2026, saw the petition disposed of as withdrawn, following a request from Parashar's counsel for permission to do so. Despite the withdrawal, the bench found it necessary to impose costs, emphasizing the detrimental impact of the prolonged litigation on a project intended for the public good. The Rs 10,000 penalty is to be paid to the M.P. State Legal Aid Services Authority within 30 days, with a compliance report to follow.

The Patan Kanera dam project, situated in Seoni, has a long history of planning and approval. Records reviewed by the court indicated that the proposed site for the dam was first inspected by the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Survey Division, Seoni, on March 16, 1981, and its location was duly marked in Topo Sheet No. 55N/6. A subsequent inspection in 2015 reaffirmed the suitability of the site.

Following these assessments, the State officially sanctioned the project on November 16, 2015. Administrative approval was granted on November 2, 2017, with an estimated cost of Rs 948.35 lakh, designed to irrigate 410 hectares. The construction work was subsequently awarded to M/s Arjun Singh Baghel through an agreement executed on January 29, 2018. The court explicitly noted that the site chosen in 1981 and again in 2015/2016 remained "one and the same," confirming no alteration in the dam's proposed location. The bench underscored the project's significance as a vital water resource for Seoni, lamenting that it "has not progressed at all" since 2019 due to the ongoing litigation.

A crucial aspect of this case involved the petitioner's shifting legal stance. On November 19, 2024, the court had initially granted an application by Parashar himself to convert his original petition into a Public Interest Litigation. This order explicitly documented that Parashar claimed no personal interest in the matter, asserting that he had approached the court "in the interest of public at large." Consequently, the registry was instructed to assign the case to the appropriate bench for hearing as a PIL.

The matter proceeded as a PIL, with arguments heard on October 6, 2026, and was then scheduled for November 4. However, an application dated October 26, 2026, was also brought before the bench on that day, seeking to reclassify the PIL back into a regular writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The bench expressed its displeasure, stating it was "at pains to observe" that a dam intended for broader public benefit had been "stalled since 2019 by filing of this petition." The court highlighted that the project had already withstood technical scrutiny during the petition's pendency, and the petitioner's attempt to reverse course with an application "exactly contrary to a previous application" occurred precisely when the matter was "at the verge of the conclusion." The court concluded that the petitioner was "not realizing the harm that the litigation has already caused to the public interest."

This ruling from the Madhya Pradesh High Court serves as a significant reinforcement of the distinct nature of Public Interest Litigations and the judiciary's firm stance against their misuse. The imposition of costs for an "abuse of the process of law" sends a clear message that courts will not tolerate tactical maneuvers designed to impede public interest projects, especially when such actions involve converting a PIL into a private petition at a late stage. The court's observation that the project had been stalled for years due to the litigation, despite having cleared technical hurdles, underscores the gravity of such delays.

The decision highlights the judiciary's commitment to protecting public resources and ensuring that legal processes are not exploited for ulterior motives or to obstruct essential development. Lawyers should advise clients that attempting to convert a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) into a private petition late in the proceedings, particularly when it has stalled a public project, will likely be deemed an abuse of process by Indian courts, leading to significant costs and adverse rulings. This case reinforces the principle that PILs are meant for genuine public causes, not as a flexible tool for private grievances or to prolong disputes.

Lawyers should advise clients that attempting to convert a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) into a private petition late in the proceedings, particularly when it has stalled a public project, will likely be deemed an abuse of process by Indian courts, leading to significant costs and adverse rulings. This ruling reinforces the distinct nature of PILs and the judiciary's intolerance for tactical maneuvers that impede public interest.

Source: Original reporting via legal news portal.