Gujarat High Court Slaps ₹20 Lakh Cost On PIL Litigant Found Involved In Blackmailing Scandal

Dismissing a PIL seeking demolition of alleged illegal and unauthorised constructions near Lajpore Central Jail in Surat, the Gujarat High Court said that the litigant misused the PIL mechanism for personal gain and that abuse of court process by an unscrupulous person who was caught blackmailing cannot be permitted.

In doing so the court imposed exemplary cost of ₹20 Lakh on the petitioner, Ajay Rameshbhai Trivedi. 

The division bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi in its order said:

“The present public interest litigation seems to have been filed with ulterior motive for personal gain by making allegations of illegal constructions against the respondent society. The fact that the petitioner's credentials are found to be highly doubtful, the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of locus standi of the present petitioner to maintain the petition for making an inquiry into the nature of constructions raised by the respondent society are liable to be rejected. The fact that the petitioner has been caught in one case of blackmailing in a sting operation, is sufficient to show him the exit doors of the Court, inasmuch as such an unscrupulous person cannot be permitted to misuse the process of this Court.”

Ordering the imposition of exemplary costs, the bench further held, “In view of the above discussion, the present petition filed in the nature of public interest litigation is liable to be dismissed outrightly with the exemplary cost of Rs. 20,00,000/- (20 Lakhs), which shall be deposited by the petitioner within a period of two months from today.”

To prevent any future misuse, the Court directed, “We further provide as an abundant caution, that any other writ petition, if filed in the name of the petitioner, namely Ajay Rameshbhai Trivedi, in the nature of public interest litigation pertaining to the District Surat, in future, shall be placed before the Registrar (Judicial) for scrutiny and no such petition shall be entertained by the registry at the instance of the said person.”

The order was passed in a PIL, whereby the petitioner identifying himself as an RTI activist and whistle-blower, had approached the Court claiming that respondent Gita Industries Co-Operative Service Society Ltd had constructed residential buildings in violation of previous government orders and undertakings. He contended that such construction posed a threat to public safety and security due to its proximity to a central jail in Surat.

During the hearing, the respondent society drew the Court's attention to a Civil Application disclosing that the petitioner had been caught red-handed in a police sting operation, accepting ₹45 lakhs in extortion money. The respondent said that according to an FIR filed earlier this year, Trivedi had blackmailed one Mahendrakumar Dhirajlal Patel to pay Rs. 5 crore failing which a complaint would be made against him in relation to discharge of the chemicals by the companies owned by him so that the said companies were closed by the GPCB. 

The FIR records that the sting operation was conducted by the police authorities based on the complaint of Mahendrakumar Dhirajlal Patel and in the sting operation, the petitioner Ajay Rameshbhai Trivedi was caught red handed taking extortion money of Rs.45 lakhs and the money was recovered  by the police. 

His bail application was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat, and he was in judicial custody at the time of the hearing. However the petitioner asserted that the PIL was instituted to address the unauthorized construction undertaken by the respondent society in close proximity to the jail premises, which posed significant and imminent threat to the public safety and security. 

In order to assess whether the PIL was maintainable the bench noted that various Supreme Court decisions had given a note of severe warning and had sounded a red-alert emphasizing that the "Courts should not allow its process to be abused by a mere busybody or a meddlesome interloper or wayfarer or officious intervened without any interest or concern except for personal gain or private profit or other oblique considerations".

It thereafter considered the facts of the case and said, “Considering the facts of the present case, wherein the petitioner who claims to be a businessman in the original petition and has projected himself a public spirited person, has been caught red-handed for blackmailing another business man in the Surat city in order to extort money. The petitioner was caught red-handed in a sting operation while taking extortion money of Rs.45 Lakhs from the complainant businessman.”

“When such is the conduct of the petitioner, the fact that the sting operation was conducted pursuant to the complaint of another businessman or the allegations against the petitioner as alleged in the First Information Report are yet to be proved, will not be a reason to permit the petitioner to maintain the present petition. The first and foremost question which the petitioner has to establish and the Court has to ascertain in a public interest litigation is “credentials of the petitioner”,” the Court added.

The Court observed that it was evident that the the petitioner was "blackmailing and was trying to extort money" from the businessmen of Surat by creating fear in their mind that if they did not shell money, he would make a complaint of violation of one or the other laws.

With respect to the deposit of cost the court directed, “The amount so deposited shall be transmitted to the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority and shall be spent in the welfare project for orphan children.”

The PIL was  dismissed.

Case Title: Ajay Rameshbhai Trivedi vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.

Case No.: R/WRIT PETITION (PIL) (WRIT PETITION (PIL)) NO. 90 of 2021

Click Here To Read Judgement 

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 70