Bilaspur : The High Court of Chhattisgarh has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) regarding the pollution of Lemehai Talab in Raipur, labeling the petition as a “misconceived” attempt to settle a private grievance under the guise of public interest. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, expressed strong displeasure over the petitioner’s conduct, ultimately imposing a cost of ₹50,000 for wasting judicial time and suppressing material facts.
The case was brought forward by Ajay Kumar Nishad, who sought urgent court intervention to stop the continuous discharge of untreated sewage into Lemehai Talab, a public water body in Raipura used for religious and community activities. The petitioner argued that the direct inflow of waste from nearby residential colonies was causing severe environmental degradation and posing a significant threat to public health. Despite previous complaints to the Municipal Corporation and proceedings before the Lok Adalat, Nishad claimed that no effective remedial steps had been taken by the authorities.
However, the legal landscape shifted significantly when counsel for the respondents revealed that the petitioner had a direct personal stake in the water body. It was disclosed that Nishad had participated in a government tender for fishing rights at Lemehai Talab and was declared the successful L-1 bidder. Despite being allotted the pond, he failed to deposit the required lease amount despite multiple communications from the authorities. Furthermore, the court noted that Nishad had failed to disclose these facts, along with details of earlier proceedings, in his current petition.
In its judgment, the High Court emphasized that a litigant invoking PIL jurisdiction must approach the bench with “clean hands, a clean heart, and a clean objective”. The court found that the petition was not driven by a genuine concern for the public but was instead a motivated attempt to address a private frustration regarding the tender process. Citing established Supreme Court precedents, the Bench reiterated that frivolous and motivated petitions filed under the color of public interest must be discouraged with exemplary costs to prevent the abuse of the law.
As a result, the court dismissed the petition and ordered Nishad to deposit ₹50,000 within one month. This amount is designated for the Government Home for Mentally Underdeveloped Children at Mana Camp, Raipur. Additionally, the court ordered the forfeiture of the ₹15,000 security deposit made by the petitioner at the time of filing.
Case Title : Ajay Kumar Nishad vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others