The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by an advocate seeking removal of alleged encroachment by Daurala Sugar Mill, Meerut, over both sides of the road of Daurala Lower Rajwaha, holding that the petition was a “gross misuse and abuse of process of law.”
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra imposed a cost of ₹25,000 on the petitioner, Ravindra Ahlawat @ Ravindra Kumar, and warned him against indulging in acts that may invite harsher action from the Court.
The order was passed in Ravindra Ahlawat @ Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P. and 4 others, Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 331 of 2026.
Background
The petitioner had approached the High Court seeking directions to the Executive Engineer, Meerut Khand, Ganga Canal/Irrigation Department, Meerut, and the District Magistrate, Meerut, to remove alleged illegal encroachment by respondent no. 5, Daurala Sugar Mill, Meerut, over both sides of the road of Daurala Lower Rajwaha, a mini canal passing by the mill at Tehsil Sardhana, District Meerut.
According to the petitioner, the road/rasta/track on both sides of the canal connected several villages, and the alleged encroachment by the mill was causing inconvenience to villagers. He also claimed that despite several applications seeking removal of the alleged encroachment, no effective action had been taken.
The petitioner relied on the fact that on December 5, 2022, the Assistant Engineer of Ganga Canal, Meerut had indicated that instructions had been issued for removal of encroachment. However, according to him, nothing happened thereafter.
When the matter was first heard on February 9, 2026, counsel appearing for Daurala Sugar Mill filed a compilation of documents and made serious allegations against the petitioner. The petitioner was then granted time to seek instructions and later filed a supplementary affidavit dated March 16, 2026. The matter was finally heard on April 28, 2026.
Petitioner’s Submissions
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite an indication in 2022 regarding alleged encroachment by the mill and instructions issued to the Ziledar for removal of the same, no action had been taken so far.
The petitioner referred to various applications and photographs placed on record to contend that the alleged encroachment continued and that his representations had gone in vain.
Daurala Sugar Mill Questions Petitioner’s Credentials
Daurala Sugar Mill opposed the PIL and questioned the credentials of the petitioner.
It was submitted that the petitioner had worked as Chairman of Cane Development Council and was involved in activities that resulted in lodging of various FIRs against him.
The mill further submitted that the petitioner was found guilty in an inquiry in relation to his actions while purportedly acting for the welfare of farmers. Thereafter, an order dated April 12, 2018 was passed withdrawing his authorization. His challenge to that order in Writ-C No. 39738 of 2019 was dismissed by the High Court on December 9, 2019.
The mill also placed before the Court details of the following criminal cases lodged against the petitioner:
- FIR No. 1022 of 2017 under Sections 504, 307 and 506 IPC, Police Station Sardhana, District Meerut.
- FIR No. 0294 of 2019 under Sections 506, 323 and 386 IPC, Police Station Daurala, District Meerut.
- FIR No. 0412 of 2019 under Sections 504, 307 and 323 IPC, Police Station Daurala, District Meerut.
It was contended that the PIL had been filed with mala fides against the officials of the mill to settle personal scores and was liable to be dismissed on that ground alone.
On the allegation of encroachment, the mill submitted that permission had been granted to it on June 25, 2018 by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, to utilize a strip of land of Rajwaha in public interest, subject to certain conditions mentioned in the office memorandum. The mill stated that the conditions were never violated.
It was further submitted that during an inspection conducted on December 26, 2024, no encroachment was found. A letter dated January 10, 2025 issued by the Executive Engineer recorded that even farmers’ vehicles were conveniently moving from Rajwaha.
The mill also submitted that it had been functional since 1932 and that for more than 90 years, no one had raised any objection regarding alleged encroachment or inconvenience.
Petitioner’s Response
In response, counsel for the petitioner submitted, with reference to the supplementary affidavit, that in all criminal cases, final reports had been submitted by the investigating agency and, therefore, no criminal case was pending.
This submission was denied by counsel for Daurala Sugar Mill, who contended that matters were still pending before the criminal court, either in furtherance of submission of final reports or otherwise.
Status reports relating to Crime Nos. 412 of 2019 and 1022 of 2017 were placed before the Court, showing pendency of such matters before the competent criminal court and continuous fixation of dates.
Court Says Petitioner Did Not Disclose Credentials
The High Court noted that the petitioner had not disclosed his credentials in the PIL, except stating that he was an advocate and a passer-by of the disputed rasta.
The Bench observed that only after his credentials were questioned through the compilation dated February 9, 2026, the petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit admitting that he had worked as Chairman of Cane Development Council from June 2016 up to 2021.
On the criminal cases, the Court noted that although the petitioner claimed that final reports had been submitted and accepted in all FIRs, he annexed only one order dated December 13, 2021, by which the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Meerut accepted the final report in Crime No. 412 of 2019.
The Court found that the petitioner had not disclosed that, except that one matter, other matters were pending before courts for acceptance or rejection of the final report.
The Bench observed:
“this fact having been brought to the notice of the Court on behalf of respondent no. 5, makes the intention of the petitioner clear that he is playing a game of hide and seek from the Court.”
The Court further held:
“In the opinion of the Court, the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and concealment of his status as Chairman of Cane Development Council at the first instance and indicating his credentials as an Advocate and a mere passer-by of the disputed rasta/rajwaha, in itself, reflects that his intention was not fair and it is only when his previous working status was brought to the notice of the Court on 09.02.2026, supplementary affidavit was filed on 16.03.2026 making disclosure of his previous engagement with the Mill.”
The Bench also recorded that “false and incomplete disclosure has been made by him qua criminal cases.”
Court Rejects Encroachment Allegation
On the allegation of encroachment by Daurala Sugar Mill, the High Court said it was not inclined to accept the petitioner’s case in view of the documents brought on record by respondent no. 5.
The Court observed that based on inspection and inquiry, it had been reported and accepted that there was no encroachment and no inconvenience was being caused to farmers, who were conveniently using the rasta.
Court Refers To Supreme Court Rulings On Misuse Of PIL
The High Court referred to State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, 2010 AIR SCW 1029, where the Supreme Court issued directions to preserve the purity and sanctity of PIL jurisdiction.
The Court reproduced the Supreme Court’s directions that courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PILs and discourage PILs filed for extraneous considerations. The directions also require courts to prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner, satisfy themselves about the correctness of the contents of the petition, and ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind the PIL.
The Bench also referred to Rule 1(3-A) of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, which requires a PIL petitioner to specifically state his credentials, the public cause he is seeking to espouse, that he has no personal or private interest in the matter, that there is no authoritative pronouncement by the Supreme Court or High Court on the question raised, and that the result of the litigation will not lead to undue gain to himself or anyone associated with him, or undue loss to any person, body of persons or the State.
The Court said the amended rule mandates that a PIL petitioner must precisely and specifically disclose his credentials. If the requirement is not fulfilled, the High Court is obliged to deal with such non-compliance and test the possibility of abuse and misuse of process of law.
The Bench also relied on Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, (1992) 4 SCC 305, where the Supreme Court held that only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in PIL proceedings can approach the Court, and not a person acting for personal gain, private profit, political motive or oblique consideration.
It further cited Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India and others, (2004) 3 SCC 363, where the Supreme Court held that courts should filter out frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs so that a message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of courts.
The Court also referred to Buddhi Kota Subbarai (Dr.) v. K. Parasaran, (1996) 5 SCC 530, Prestige Lights Limited v. State Bank of India, (2007) 8 SCC 449, and K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited and others, (2008) 12 SCC 481, on the requirement of full and true disclosure by litigants invoking writ jurisdiction.
In K.D. Sharma, the Supreme Court had held that no litigant can play “hide and seek” with courts or adopt “pick and choose”, and that one should come with candid facts and clean breast.
PIL Dismissed With ₹25,000 Cost
After considering the material on record and the Supreme Court precedents, the High Court held:
“In view of the above discussion, we are satisfied that the instant petition is a gross misuse and abuse of process of law and deserves dismissal with cost so that it may set a deterrent example to discard unscrupulous persons from invoking Writ Jurisdiction for their vested interest under the camouflage of PIL.”
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition with cost of ₹25,000.
The petitioner was directed to deposit the cost before the Registrar General of the High Court within three weeks from the date of the order.
The Court further directed that if the amount is not deposited, respondent no. 5 may move an application before the Registrar General, who will then send a copy of the order along with his letter to the Collector, Meerut, to issue a recovery citation against the petitioner for recovering the amount as arrears of land revenue within one month from receipt of the order.
The Bench also warned the petitioner, observing:
“Since the petitioner is an Advocate and has also been involved in criminal cases based upon allegations which we do not want to indicate in this order, we suggest as well as warn him not to indulge in such acts which may give rise to harsher action by this Court.”
Case Details
Case Title: Ravindra Ahlawat @ Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P. and 4 others
Case No.: Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 331 of 2026
Bench: Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra
Order Date: April 28, 2026
Petitioner’s Counsel: Shantanu, Raj Kumar Dhama
Respondents’ Counsel: Diptiman Singh, Seema Agarwal, Standing Counsel
