Ajay Jain vs State of Rajasthan

This writ petition has been filed purportedly in public interest with the following relief:

"(I)..........

(II)..........

(a)..........

(b) Facts and figures of generation of employment (Directly and/or indirectly) to the permanent residents of the State of Rajasthan during construction and during operation period of Oil Refinery be given separately."

The petitioner is M.Tech. from IIT, Kanpur with service experience in Assam Oil Company of over a decade. He has highlighted his credentials for supporting the cause, for which, he has filed the writ petition.

The primary concern of the writ petitioner is the alleged false information, published by the State Government in establishing the oil refinery in the State. It is stated that the capacity of the oil refinery has been over stated including the potential of the generation of the employment. Initially the State published the employment generation potential to be 1.39 lacs; thereafter it was increased to over 4 lacs. According to the petitioner, the oil refinery with the production capacity of 15 MMTPA, can provide direct employment to about 1600 persons, and at best indirect employment at about 12000 persons.

It is submitted by the petitioner, appearing in person, that the overstatement of the generation of employment, is misleading the people to settle in the area and further, the false information is being used for the political purposes for going ahead with the project.

The petitioner had earlier filed D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 16665/2013, in which he had, after giving his credentials, made almost similar prayers to stopping the State Government from making false and propagative statements with regard to the proposed benefits and the results of the refinery. In the earlier writ petition, apart from stating that the claim in the government publications and information in false, the petitioner had accused the government of withholding vital facts and distorting those disseminated, to misguide the public and fritter away the State revenue.

This Court had heard and dismissed the earlier writ petition. The judgment in the earlier writ petition mentions that with reference to Rule 385-H(1) of the Rules of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan (Amendment) Rules, 2010, the petitioner was required to furnish a security of Rs. 5.00 lacs, which he had declined. The Court, following the observation made by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and Others, which had approved the observations in Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Commit. and Another Vs. C.K. Rajan and Others, declined to entertain the writ petition and dismissed it on the ground that the Memorandum of Understanding, for the purpose of establishing the refinery, was based on the study conducted by the National Council of Applied Economic Research. The writ petition did not comply with the essential attributes as prescribed by the Rules to merit initiation of the public interest litigation and that the cause espoused was misconceived.

The petitioner, despite dismissal of the earlier writ petition, has filed this second writ petition on almost the same averments and has again come up with the plea that the information given by the State Government leads to the propaganda, which seeks to harm the public interest.

We find that the petitioner has filed this writ petition on almost the same facts and prayers, which is not permissible in law. The qualifications obtained by the petitioner, by itself, cannot be a ground to give a right to the petitioner to file repeated writ petitions for the same purpose.

Though the petitioner states that he is not against the project and that his aim is not to stop the establishment of the oil refinery, the repeated the attempts made by him raise a doubt over his bonafide. It is apparent that he has some hidden agenda, which is apparently against public interest to be served:-setting up the oil refinery in the State.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, in order to dissuade the petitioner from filing repeated writ petitions for similar relief, we consider it appropriate to impose a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the petitioner, which shall be recovered by the District Collector, Jaipur and deposited in the account of the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Rajasthan High Court Bench, Jaipur. The costs will be recovered by the District Collector, Jaipur within three months.

The writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations.