The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea and levied a fine of Rs 50,000. The court observed that the petitioner persistently pursued an issue that had already been resolved, warranting the imposition of the penalty.

The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar presided over the PIL filed by Bhartiya Kisan Union Pathik, represented by its National Chairman. The petitioner sought various remedies concerning the acquisition of land outlined in the Gazette Notification dated October 25, 2010, under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The respondent's counsel informed the court that this was the fourth consecutive petition filed under the guise of public interest. He emphasized that the high court had previously dismissed three petitions regarding the same land and project.

The high court highlighted that in an order dated February 1, 2024, the petitioner, a registered union, was instructed to submit its registration certificate and a list of members. However, the petitioner failed to comply with this directive.

Furthermore, the court emphasized that it was evident that despite the dismissal of numerous petitions concerning the subject matter of the current writ petition, there had been another attempt to pursue the same purpose by establishing a new union. Additionally, the court noted that at least one of the previous petitioners was involved in this endeavor.

The division bench held that the petitioner's repeated efforts to raise an issue that had already been conclusively resolved through various petitions filed under the guise of Public Interest Litigation cannot be tolerated under any circumstances.

The court remarked that the petitioner's actions essentially constituted manipulation and an attempt to deceive the court. It asserted that such conduct warranted severe consequences. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition and imposed a substantial cost as a deterrent measure.

Case title: Bhartiya Kisan Union Pathik v. State of U.P. And 4 others