Rajasthan HC Criticizes Misuse Of PIL Jurisdiction To Serve Vested Interests, Imposes 50K Fine On Villagers

The Rajasthan High Court has recently fined two Jodhpur villagers Rs. 50,000 for abusing PIL jurisdiction in pursuit of their vested interests with respect to quarry licences for mining activities distributed via e-auction.

The bench of Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Srivastava and Justice Kuldeep Mathur stated that the petitioners’ allegations in the writ plea are not only factually inaccurate, but also contradict revenue records and different reports.

The petitioners alleged that the respondents’ actions for the grant of quarry licences on the subject land are against the public interest since they will adversely affect the flow of rainy water and the catchment area of different small ponds on which the people and animals rely.

The respondents claimed that the e-auction proceedings for quarry permits were conducted strictly in line with the law and after ensuring that all requirements, including environmental clearance, were met. It was also submitted that the government owns the land and that the relevant authorities had awarded quarry licences following demarcation.

Furthermore, within 45 metres of the region, there is no public space, catchment area, or water reservoir. Therefore, it was stated that the site of the quarry licence is in conformity with Rule 28 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017. The Deputy Conservator of Forests was also claimed to have granted permission.

According to the report of the site inspection undertaken under the direction of the Central Jal Shakti Ministry, no planting existed on the land in question. Furthermore, no nadi, nala, talab, or catchment area were discovered on the proposed land for granting a quarry licence, Court was informed.

After reviewing the evidence, the Court discovered that the petitioner is also a signatory to the e-auction for the quarry license, which he has challenged. According to the Court, this demonstrates that the petitioner was personally interested in obtaining the licence.

It further added that the petitioner had not even bothered to name the people in whose favour quarry licences were granted. Even the quarry liences issued were not challenged.

“Such petitions are rising to serve vested interests with oblique motives, and the petitions are being filed without proper research,” the Court observed, dismissing the plea with costs.