Back
Dismisses Shailesh Singh's PIL Over Slaughterhouse Tender, Fines ₹2 Lakh
The has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Shailesh Singh, an investigative journalist and editor of
Rashtriya Samasya
, challenging the award of a tender for a municipal slaughterhouse in Bareilly. A division bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra imposed a cost of ₹2 lakh on the petitioner for concealing multiple previous proceedings concerning the same subject matter, terming the petition a
"
."
A Decade-Old Tender and a Litigious Trail
The dispute arose from a Public Private Partnership concession granted in for a slaughterhouse at Mohanpur Thiriya, Bareilly, in favor of Shailesh Singh approached the High Court in , seeking to quash the tender approval letter dated , and all subsequent agreements. He alleged that the tender process was vitiated by fraud, collusion, and violations of . The petitioner also sought a fresh transparent tender with mandatory verification of bidders' records.
However, the private company, represented by , countered that the petitioner had an "" to unsettle a commercial concession granted over a decade ago. The court was informed that Shailesh Singh had previously filed at least two PILs and two applications before the (NGT) related to the same slaughterhouse. A prior PIL (No. 1869 of 2024) was dismissed as withdrawn, and another (No. 2186 of 2024) was disposed of with liberty to approach the NGT. The NGT had dismissed one original application as withdrawn, while another remained pending.
"Hide and Seek" with the Court
The High Court noted that despite this extensive litigation history, the petitioner's fresh PIL contained a declaration that no other petition had been filed on the same cause of action. The bench found this declaration "apparently false," as the earlier proceedings directly pertained to the same
tender. The court observed that the petitioner had sworn on affidavit that
"nothing material has been concealed,"
which was untrue.
"Once we are satisfied that the petitioner has attempted to obtain some order by making concealment of previous proceedings in relation to the same/similar cause of action, we are of the view that the jurisdiction of this Court has been misused,"
the judges remarked.
The court further held that the petitioner appeared to be
"
"
at the instance of competitors of the company, rather than as a genuine public-spirited litigant.
Precedents on PIL Misuse
The High Court relied on several judgments to underscore the boundaries of PIL jurisdiction. Citing Janata Dal vs. H.S. Chowdhary (1992), the bench reiterated that only a person acting and having sufficient interest can maintain a PIL, not one seeking personal gain or private profit. It also referred to Dr. B. Singh vs. Union of India (2004), which held that courts should filter out and dismiss them with cost, especially when petitions are filed with oblique motives like personal vendetta or blackmail.
The court further invoked Prestige Lights Limited vs. State Bank of India (2007) and K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India (2008), emphasizing that a litigant invoking writ jurisdiction must disclose full and correct facts. is forbidden and warrants dismissal.
A Costly Deterrent
In its final order, the court dismissed the PIL with a cost of ₹2 lakh, to be deposited with the within one month. In case of default, the company may approach the Registrar General, who will direct the to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue.
The judgment serves as a strong reminder that the doors of public interest litigation cannot be used as a camouflage for private disputes or as a tool to harass opponents through repetitive litigation. The high cost imposed sends a clear message that the judiciary will not tolerate abuse of process under the guise of public interest.
