'Personal Cause in PIL Clothing': Punjab & Haryana HC Slaps ₹25K Cost on Mohali Deputy Mayor

In a sharp rebuke against misuse of public interest litigation (PIL), the Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed a petition filed by Kuljit Singh Bedi, Deputy Mayor of Mohali, challenging tender processes for road upgradation and beautification in Mohali. A division bench led by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry ruled on April 7, 2026, that the plea masked a private agenda, imposing costs of ₹25,000 to be paid to the PGI Poor Patient Welfare Fund in Chandigarh.

Road to Rejection: The Petition Unravels

The controversy stemmed from CWP-PIL-30-2026 (O&M) , where Bedi assailed tenders under Mohali's Next Generation Programme for resurfacing, upgradation, and beautification of roads and junctions. As a politically affiliated figure—disclosed via court-mandated affidavit—Bedi claimed public interest in transparent tendering.

However, scrutiny revealed deeper issues. A table on page 9 of the petition listed the petitioner as handling horticulture work on a 45-meter-wide road in Medicity, New Chandigarh, while others managed different tasks. No prior representations, despite claims, were on record. This triggered the court's probe into the PIL's bona fides.

Petitioner's Defense Crumbles Under Spotlight

Bedi's counsel, including Mr. Chirag Girdhar and Mr. Amanveer Singh , argued the table was reproduced from another document and factually wrong about the petitioner's involvement. They urged the court to overlook it, emphasizing broader public stakes in roadworks.

Respondents, represented by Senior Advocate Maninder Singh (assisted by Mr. Salil Sabhlok , Senior DAG, Punjab), highlighted the petition's inconsistencies. The bench noted the pleadings failed to back the factual inaccuracy claim, underscoring a pattern of non-disclosure.

Peeling Back the Layers: Court's Razor-Sharp Reasoning

The bench meticulously dissected the petition, finding no legal precedents directly cited but drawing on PIL jurisprudence's core tenet: petitions must serve genuine public good, not personal vendettas. The affidavit on political ties, combined with the unchallenged table and absent representations, painted a picture of self-interest.

"When a pointed question was asked... that the said contents... disclose personal interest of the petitioner," the court observed, rejecting explanations as unsupported. This echoed broader judicial caution against PIL abuse, distinguishing true public causes from disguised private disputes.

Key Observations from the Bench

  • On the revealing table : "at page no.9 of the petition, there is a table, which contains the averment that the horticulture work... is being carried out by the petitioner and other works are being carried out by other contractors."

  • Dismissing the explanation : "learned counsel for the petitioner explains that the same has been reproduced from another document and... is factually incorrect. However, the pleadings in the CWP do not support the said disclosure being factually incorrect."

  • No room for leniency : "Further, the affidavit discloses that the petitioner has made several representations, but none is found on record."

  • The damning conclusion : "we have no hesitation to hold that the cause raised herein is in fact, a personal cause camouflaged as a public cause."

Final Verdict: Costs and a Cautionary Tale

The petition stood dismissed as not maintainable, with ₹25,000 costs due within 15 days. This ruling reinforces PIL gates: only untainted public interest qualifies. For local governance in Mohali and beyond, it signals stricter scrutiny on tenders challenged by insiders, potentially deterring opportunistic filings while safeguarding genuine accountability.

The order, marked non-reportable, underscores the judiciary's vigilance in an era of rising PILs.