The High Court of Chhattisgarh, in a significant ruling on the misuse of Public Interest Litigation (PIL), has dismissed a petition concerning overloaded trucks from the NTPC Sipat plant. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, concluded that the petition was not a bona fide public cause but was motivated by the petitioner’s personal and commercial interests, imposing exemplary costs of Rs. 50,000.
Background of the Case
The petition (WPPIL No. 71 of 2025) was filed by the Kshetriya Transporter Welfare Association, through its president Shatruhan Kumar Laskar. The association sought directions for NTPC Limited Sipat to prevent overloaded trucks carrying fly ash from leaving its premises and to ensure such trucks are covered with tarpaulin. The plea also urged the Regional Transport Officer and other state authorities to enforce Sections 113, 114, 194, and 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to stop overloaded vehicles from plying the Bilaspur-Sipat-Baloda road.
The petitioner contended that the overloading of trucks from the NTPC thermal power plant was severely damaging road infrastructure, leading to numerous potholes and fatal accidents. They cited a Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change notification from December 31, 2021, which mandates the environmentally sound transport and disposal of fly ash.
Arguments of the Parties
Mr. Sanjay Patel, counsel for the petitioner, argued that the inaction of state authorities was illegal and arbitrary. He referenced the Supreme Court’s directions in Paramjit Bhasin Vs Union of India to stop the overloading of trucks and its decision in S. Rajaseekaran Vs Union of India concerning the constitution of state committees for road safety.
Representing the State, Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate, challenged the petitioner’s locus standi, arguing that the petition lacked proper authorization and was an abuse of the legal process. He pointed out that another PIL on the very same issue (W.P. (PIL) No.37/2024) was already under the court’s active consideration, in which the court had also taken suo motu cognizance.
Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate for NTPC, echoed these objections, describing the petition as “a motivated litigation camouflaged as a Public Interest Litigation.” He submitted that the petitioner, a transporter, had a direct commercial interest in obtaining transportation contracts from NTPC. He drew the court’s attention to a letter (Annexure P/4) in which the petitioner had sought priority for “regional transporters” and the fixation of “reasonable freight rates,” which, he argued, revealed the true motive was rooted in “private trade rivalry and competitive business interest.” Furthermore, it was revealed that an FIR had been registered against the petitioner’s president on July 11, 2025, for creating law and order disturbances.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Division Bench conducted a thorough examination of the petitioner’s credentials and motives. The court reiterated its duty to “preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL” by discouraging petitions filed for extraneous considerations.
The judgment noted several key factors that established the petitioner’s lack of bona fides:
- Lack of Credentials and Authorization: The court found that the petitioner had not disclosed its credentials, and the authorization was annexed as an “afterthought.”
- Personal and Commercial Motive: The petitioner’s own letter demanding priority and fixed freight rates, combined with the fact that another PIL on the same issue was already pending, “unmistakably shows that the present petition has been filed not in pursuit of any genuine public cause but only to secure his personal gain.”
- Suppression of Material Facts: The petitioner had failed to disclose the FIR registered against its president. The FIR, lodged by a supervisor of another transport company, alleged that the petitioner’s president and others had unlawfully obstructed vehicles, threatened drivers, and deflated tires in a dispute over gravel transportation from NTPC. The court held that these facts “clearly demonstrate that there exists a private dispute relating to transportation of gravel from NTPC, Sipat.”
The court cited several Supreme Court judgments, including State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors., to emphasize that the PIL jurisdiction should not be abused. Quoting from Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, the court observed:
“…the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit… break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the courts…”
The Bench concluded that the petition was a “motivated attempt to pursue a personal vendetta under the garb of public interest litigation” and an abuse of the court’s extraordinary jurisdiction.
Final Decision
Finding the petition to be a self-serving litigation actuated by personal gain, the High Court dismissed it at the threshold. The court imposed “exemplary costs of Rs.50,000/-” on the petitioner to deter such frivolous petitions. The amount is to be transmitted to the Specialized Adoption Agency (SAA) in Gariyaband and Balod. The court further directed that if the costs are not paid, a Revenue Recovery Certificate shall be issued. The security amount deposited by the petitioner was also forfeited.
