Madras High Court slaps ₹20 lakh costs on litigant, restrains him from filing PILs for a year

The Madras High Court recently restrained a litigant from filing public interest litigation (PIL) petitions for a year and also imposed a cost of ₹20 lakh on him after it came to light that the petitioner had knowingly suppressed important information pertaining to his matter..In an order passed on December 4, a Bench of Chief Justice KR Shriram and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy restrained TH Rajamohan, a 67-year-old man, from filing PILs for a year.Rajamohan had moved the Court challenging a Government Order issued by the State Revenue Department that allowed alienation of around 40.97 acres of land.Rajamohan claimed that around 13 acres of such land was reserved forest area and sought directions to the State to update its records and secure the forest land.The State opposed the PIL and told the Court that the disputed land was classified as forest land in the year 1905. However, it had been denotified in the year 1962 and had since ceased to be forest land, the State said..The State also questioned the bonafides of the petitioner and submitted that Rajamohan had been prosecuted in the past for having encroached upon government land.An advocate commissioner appointed by the Court also confirmed such de-notification..The Court realised Rajamohan had deliberately suppressed such information.It further noted that in the PIL, Rajamohan had also accused former Member of the Legislative Assembly C Gnanasekaran of having used his influence to sell the land to real estate developers. However, Rajamohan had not submitted any documents to prove the same.The Court took note of the submissions made by Senior Counsel P Wilson and Satish Parasaran who appeared for the MLC and the developer against whom allegations had been made.They claimed that much damage had been caused to their clients due to the media reports after the filing of the PIL..Therefore, the Court thought it fit to impose costs on the petitioner.“Irrespective of whether such news releases originated from the petitioner, this would certainly have caused significant losses to the business and reputation of the 12th respondent. In our view, when the facts and circumstances are considered cumulatively in light of the principles enunciated in paragraph 181 of Balwant Singh Chaufal, it is appropriate to not only impose costs on the petitioner but also restrain him from filing PILs in this Court for a year without obtaining prior permission,” the High Court said..The judges also noticed irregularities in the age, occupation, income etc. of the petitioner in his affidavit and the documents submitted in the Court. The Court then said that either Rajamohan was willingly deceiving the Court or he was being made to do so at someone else’s behest.Hence, the Court proceeded to pass adverse order against him.“Only two inferences may be drawn in this regard. Either the petitioner lied in Court or he has been set up as a front by somebody to orchestrate the petition. In either case, it is just and necessary to impose costs on the petitioner so as to deter the filing of petitions, particularly by way of PILs, misstating or suppressing facts with oblique motives,” the High Court said.It imposed costs of ₹20 lakh on the petitioner. Out of the said amount ₹10 lakh is to be paid to Vishal Developers against whom the allegations were made by the petitioner.The remaining ₹10 lakh should be paid to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, the Court directed..[Read Order]