Allahabad High Court Dismisses PIL Filed By Advocate Representing His Client For Private Gain

In a stern ruling, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought to challenge the allotment of government tenders. The bench, comprised of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra, observed that the petition was a classic instance of abusing the court's PIL jurisdiction by an individual hiding his professional identity.

A Veil of Secrecy

The petitioner, who represented himself as a social activist committed to public welfare, had moved the court demanding an inquiry into the alleged arbitrary award of tenders to specific firms. He further sought to stay the retiral benefits of a government official, Raju Rana, while the inquiry was pending.

However, scrutiny of the court records revealed a significant omission: the petitioner failed to disclose that he was an practicing advocate. The court observed that this information was intentionally suppressed, despite references to his legal practice in annexures attached to the petition itself.

The True Intent

The legal proceedings took an unexpected turn when the court analyzed the petitioner's prior representations to the Chief Minister. The documents exposed that the advocate was not acting for the public at large, but was seeking to restore a contract to one specific entity, M/s Bajpai Traders. The firm had previously engaged the same counsel in unrelated litigation to challenge the same cancellation of their tender.

"The very fact that the petitioner, an Advocate, had made a prayer for awarding contract in favour of a particular party, filing of a petition in public interest claiming himself as a social activist essentially is gross abuse of the jurisdiction of public interest litigation ," the court remarked.

Key Observations from the Bench

The High Court issued a strong condemnation regarding the sanctity of PILs, emphasizing that they are intended for the benefit of the public, not to serve as a backdoor for private litigation.

• "Filing of PILs by Advocates, suppressing their status and claiming public interest, which essentially is interest of their clients, is gross abuse of process of PIL jurisdiction , which cannot be permitted."
• "The fact that the petitioner in the representation made sought relief for the said M/s Bajpai Traders and the counsel representing the petitioner in the present petition had filed writ petition on behalf of said M/s Bajpai Traders , cannot be a mere co-incidence."

Implications of the Ruling

The petition was ultimately dismissed, with the bench issuing a formal warning to the petitioner. The court clarified that such professional misconduct, intended to manipulate the judicial process for personal or client-specific gains, undermines the integrity of the PIL mechanism. This ruling serves as a reminder to the legal fraternity that the court will take a dim view of any attempts to disguise private interest as public concern, and future instances may lead to much sterner, punitive action from the judiciary.