Karnataka High Court imposes ₹10 lakh costs on petitioner for "personal interest litigation" against former business associate

The Karnataka High Court on Monday imposed ₹10 lakh costs on a petitioner for filing a petition Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against his former business associate. .A Bench of Acting Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice SS Magadum noted that the petitioner had suppressed the fact the plea was against his former business associate and the plea was not in public interest but more in the nature of personal interest litigation."In the considered opinion of this Court, in the present case is a personal interest litigation in the form the PIL. In the light of the affidavit filed by the petitioner and on account of the directions issued by the Court, there is a clear suppression of facts in the present petition......In the light of the aforesaid judgement, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present PIL is not at all maintainable. This is a personal interest litigation by a person who is having business interest with Respondent 6. This is a sheer misuse of the process of law. The petition not only deserved to be dismissed but dismissed with exemplary costs. The petitioner is directed to deposit of Rs 10 lakhs with the Karnataka Registered Advocates' Clerks Association as large number of Clerks are affected on account of COVID-19," the Court said.It directed the petitioner to deposit the costs with the Karnataka Registered Advocates' Clerks Association within 30 days to aid clerks affected on account of COVID-19..The petitioner Prashanth Amin had filed the present public interest litigation claiming that respondent, Raj Fish Meal and Oil Company was discharging fish and other pollutants, without treating them, directly into the environment..When the matter was taken up for hearing, the counsel appearing for the the respondent company informed the Court that the present petition is not a PIL at all. In fact, the petitioner had received ₹95 crores from the respondent company. After breaking the contract with the respondent, the petitioner had proceeded to file the instant PIL, the Court was told.The Court, after going through the facts, observed,."We will impose cost on you. You have been in business with him. In PIL, you can't do all this. You are an interested party here.".While passing the order, the Court also noted that the Pollution Control Board filed a report, which categorically stated that it had been carrying out periodical inspections and that the present factory in question was complying with all the statutory provisions.The Court, therefore, dismissed the plea with costs.