Chennai: Retired inspector fined Rs 25,000 for supressing facts in PIL
The bench said it was a well settled position of law that the Public Interest Litigant was not an adversary litigant.
Chennai: The Madras high court has imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on a litigant, for suppressing material facts in his Public Interest Litigation.
A division bench comprising Justices M.Sathyanarayanan and P.Rajamanickam imposed the cost on a 67-year-old G.Rajaraman, a retired Inspector of Police, Puducherry.
In his PIL, he sought a direction to the Chief Secretary and DGP, Puducherry to implement the orders passed by the Police Complaints Authority, Puducherry and to take necessary action against the erring police officers as directed by the Police Complaints Authority (PCA).
The bench said it was a well settled position of law that the Public Interest Litigant was not an adversary litigant. However, the Public Interest Litigant who invokes the original jurisdiction of this court was expected to come with clean hands. This court was also expected to test the genuineness of Public Interest Litigants. Though the petitioner claims that he was the general secretary of Corruption Abolition Organization has not disclosed any material facts as to his involvement in 13 criminal cases. The details were given in the court, the bench pointed out.
The bench said it was not for the petitioner to chose the relevant factors and was expected to state all the facts which may be favourable or against him. Unfortunately, the petitioner has failed to disclose the relevant material facts as to his alleged antecedents. Therefore, this court was of the considered opinion that he no longer prosecute the petition or a PIL and having suppressed the material facts, this court was inclined to impose a cost. Accordingly, Rs 25,000 as cost was imposed, to be payable to the Puducherry Legal Services Authority by January 10, 2019. However, taking into consideration of the fact as to the alleged non-implementation of the orders passed by the Police Complaints Authority, this court would like to keep the PIL pending and Superintendent of Police (HQ), Puducherry was directed to file supporting documents as to the action taken against the officers in respect of the orders passed by the Police Complaints Authority for initiation of disciplinary proceedings, the bench added and posted the matter to January 10, 2019.
