The judgment emphasizes the need for PILs to be genuinely in the public interest and not for private or political motives, and highlights the imposition of exemplary costs as a deterrent against frivolous and vexatious PILs.

JUDGMENT

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ. - The present petition has been filed purportedly in public interest by the petitioner who claims to have been previously elected as a councillor, Tadepalligudem Municipality and claims to have the knowledge as regards the method in which the municipal general funds are to be utilised for the welfare of its residents.

1.1. The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the decision of laying down of a cement concrete road in between the agricultural lands in a non-residential area allegedly only for the benefit of private respondent No.8 - who is a Minister in the present Government, and his family members, abutting their agricultural lands situate in survey Nos.39/1, 43, 43-A, 43/4A, 44/1B, 44/2B and 44/3 in Kadakatla, Tadepalligudem. The petitioner claims that instead the road ought to have been constructed in the residential areas where there are houses within the Municipalities.

2. The petitioner also has annexed the site plan with the writ petition which shows that the proposed road although cuts across agricultural lands on either side, yet abutting the agricultural lands exists the National Institute of Technology, which also has a gate opening towards the proposed road. Not only this, there is a RTC complex at the end of the proposed road which joins with the RTC depot road and finally merges in the KN road on the one side and the National Highway on the other side. In fact, from the map it is clear that, the proposed road would provide free access to commuters and would connect KN road to the National Highway and serve not only the students and faculty of the National Institute of Technology, who are numbering 1200, according to the statement made by the counsel for the petitioner, but would also link the RTC depot road and the Aerodrome road to the National Highway.

3. The fact that some land belonging to respondent No.8 and his close family members abuts the proposed road, therefore, in our opinion, can be no justification for holding that the construction of the said road was against public interest. The present petition, to us, appears to be filed more out of political motive, rather than serving any genuine public interest.

4. In fact, counsel for respondent No.8, with a view to show political motives of the petitioner drew our attention, to yet another PIL bearing number W.P.(PIL).No.117 of 2023, wherein respondent No.8 herein figures as respondent No.10 in the said PIL.

4.1. Reference in this regard was made to an order passed by this Court on 18/10/2023, passed in W.P. (PIL).No.117 of 2023, wherein the proceedings as against the said respondent No.8 herein along with few others, had been closed. It was therefore, sought to be urged that the petitioner in the guise of public interest had repeatedly been attacking the said respondent No.8, only to serve his political agenda and motives.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. The Courts have repeatedly been sensitive to the fact that PILs had to be admitted with great care and caution and that the same ought to be entertained only with a view to prevent genuine public wrong or public injury and not for achieving any private agenda or serve any political motive and also noticed with pain that, the PIL jurisdiction which had been so carefully carved out, created and nurtured with care and caution by courts was being blatantly abused by filing petitions with oblique motives. Apex Court therefore, held in State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufa, 2010 (3) SCC 402. and others1 that time had come to impose exemplary costs as deterrent, against frivolous and vexatious Public Interest Litigations to ensure that, message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motives do not have the approval of the Courts.

7. Reference is also apt to the judgment of the Apex Court in the Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. vs. Prem Chandra Mishra & Others, 2007 (14) SCC 281. where it held:

"10...13. Public intere