The Madras High Court has imposed a cost of ₹20 lakh and has prohibited the litigant from filing Public Interest Litigations (PILs) for a period of one year due to inconsistencies in the date of birth, which resulted in a mismatch with the age stated in the affidavit.
The Madras High Court has ordered a litigant to pay Rs. 20 lakhs and has prohibited him from filing Public Interest Litigations (PILs) for one year. This decision came while the Court was reviewing a Writ Petition presented as a PIL against a Government Order, which aimed to designate certain land as “reserved forest land.” Chief Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy noted discrepancies in the petitioner’s documents, including differences in the date of birth on the Aadhaar card and the PAN card. The age stated by the petitioner in court also did not align with the age in the affidavit. Despite submitting a detailed 35-page affidavit about lands in S.No.209 of Tirumullaivoyal village, it failed to address the de-notification of the reserved forest land. The Court inferred that this omission was likely intentional. The Bench highlighted inconsistencies in the age of the affiant as presented in the affidavit compared to the attached documents. Advocate Samir S. Shah represented the Petitioner, while Senior Advocates Satish Parasaran and P. Wilson represented the Respondents. Advocate R. Tholgappian was appointed as the Advocate Commissioner.
The person making the statement was identified as 67 years old, and the affidavit claimed that his yearly income exceeded Rs. 5 lakhs. A piece of land has been designated as “reserved forest land” since 1905, according to the Re-survey and Re-settlement Paisalathy Register. The Petitioner argued that this land was later divided, with 40.95 acres noted as “reserved forest land.” The Respondents disputed that this 40.95 acres was “reserved forest land” at the time it was assigned, but both parties agreed that the land was given to Imperial Chemical Industries (India) Limited (the Assignee) in 1942, under specific terms and conditions.
Subsequently, a notice was sent to the Assignee about the potential cancellation of the lease, and the decision to reclaim the land for breaching the assignment terms was confirmed by the Special Commissioner-cum-Commissioner of Land Administration. This decision was contested, but the Writ Petition was dismissed. However, the Appeal was accepted. The Petitioner requested that the land be officially marked as “reserved forest land” in all records, that a sign be placed to indicate its status, and that no one be allowed to trespass, sell, or encumber the land. The High Court noted a discrepancy between the Rs. 5 lakhs income stated in the petition and the Petitioner’s claim in court that his income was around Rs. 3 lakhs. Importantly, when asked in court, the Petitioner said he could read but did not understand English. However, the affidavit was signed in English, and most documents referenced were also in English.
The Court stated that the Petitioner either lied in Court or was used by someone else to file the Petition. In both situations, it is fair and necessary to charge the Petitioner costs to discourage the filing of Petitions, especially Public Interest Litigations (PILs), that misrepresent or hide facts for questionable reasons. The 12th respondent submitted several news articles soon after the petition was filed, showing that reserved forest land was given to a private party. Regardless of whether the Petitioner was behind these news articles, they likely harmed the 12th respondent’s business and reputation.
The Court decided that it is fitting to not only charge the Petitioner costs but also to prevent him from filing PILs in the High Court for a year without prior approval. As a result, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, imposed a fine of Rs. 20 lakhs on the Petitioner, and prohibited him from filing PILs for a year.
Cause Title: T.H. Rajmohan v. The Secretary to the Government & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:MHC:4041)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Samir S. Shah, S. John Josh, T.V. Kamalanathan, and P. Saravanan.
Respondents: Senior Advocates Satish Parasaran, P. Wilson, AAG J. Ravindran, Government Pleader A. Edwin Prabakar, Special Government Pleader T. Seenivasan, CGSC V. Sudha, Standing Counsels R.A. Gopinath, R. Thamaraiselvan.
