Rajasthan hc imposes ₹1 5 lakh fine on petitioner for ‘misusing’ pil

Rajasthan hc imposes ₹1 5 lakh fine on petitioner for ‘misusing’ pil

The Rajasthan high court on Thursday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging a joint venture between the Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd (RRVUNL) and the National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC), while imposing a ₹1.5 lakh fine on the petitioner for filing a “misconceived” petition.

The court observed that the PIL was “nothing but an abuse of the process of law” and a “sheer wastage of precious time.”

The petitioner, Ajay Chaturvedi, a retired chief engineer, had sought to quash the joint venture dated November 4, 2024, claiming it would lead to higher electricity rates, contrary to public interest.

However, the bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Anand Sharma dismissed the plea, stating that the petition appeared “motivated” and filed with an “oblique motive.”

In its order, the court noted, “The petition, if we may say so, is not only utterly misconceived but appears to be filed with oblique motive... The joint venture has been entered into between the state and Government of India undertaking, not involving any private party, for the establishment of additional power generation units and cost-effective generation.”

The court further emphasised that the joint venture aimed to enhance efficiency and reduce generation costs, with objectives including the establishment of new super critical units at the Chhabra Thermal Power Plant and the renovation of old units. It criticised the petitioner for speculating about future tariff hikes without substantive grounds.

“The venture of the petitioner to file PIL is to seek judicial intervention towards assessment, at this stage, with regard to the rates of production and supply in future. The petitioner on his own figment of imagination has sought to canvass that such arrangements may lead to increased cost of production”, the court said.

Declaring the PIL an abuse of judicial process, the court imposed an additional cost of ₹1 lakh, on top of the ₹50,000 already deposited as security. The petitioner has been given two months to pay the amount.