MP High Court Calls Bid To Convert PIL Into Private Petition Abuse Of Process, Imposes Costs
Seven years after filing, a petitioner in Seoni asked to turn his PIL into private petition as the hearing neared its end, and the Madhya Pradesh High Court answered with Rs 10,000 in costs. Calling the move an “abuse of the process of law”, the Court noted that the Patan Kanera irrigation dam had stood stalled since 2019.
Jabalpur: Costs of Rs 10,000 have been imposed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court on a petitioner whose case kept an irrigation dam in Seoni district on hold for seven years, and who then asked to reclassify his own public interest litigation as a regular writ petition just as the matter was nearing its conclusion [Rishi Parashar v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others].
The order of November 4, 2026 was passed by a Division Bench of Chief Justice Alpesh Y. Kogje and Justice Vivek Jain, and authored by Chief Justice Alpesh Y. Kogje. Counsel for the petitioner sought leave to withdraw, and Writ Petition No. 21068 of 2019 was disposed of as withdrawn.
Costs payable to the Legal Aid Authority
The Rs 10,000 is to be deposited with the M.P. State Legal Aid Services Authority within 30 days, and a compliance report is to be filed before the Registrar (Judicial).
“Stalled since 2019 by filing of this petition”
Recording its displeasure at how the litigation had unfolded, the Bench observed:
“The Court is at pains to observe that an important project, like setting up of a dam for larger public interest, has been stalled since 2019 by filing of this petition. And though the project has stood the test of technicalities, and that too pending the petition, and when the matter is at the verge of the conclusion, an application is made, exactly contrary to a previous application, for treating the present petition to be a petition with private interest, not realizing the harm that the litigation has already caused to the public interest.”
With the petitioner withdrawing, the Court said it would hold back from strict observations against him. It added, however, that it:
“…deems it fit to impose cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) upon the petitioner for the abuse of the process of law.”
A PIL at the petitioner’s own request
The case did not begin as a PIL. On November 19, 2024, the Court allowed an application moved by the petitioner himself to convert it into one. That order recorded that he had no personal interest in the matter and had come to court in the interest of the public at large, and the Registry was directed to place it before the appropriate Bench.
Arguments were heard in part on October 6, 2026, and the PIL was listed for November 4, 2026 at 2:30 pm. That day, I.A. No. 25128 of 2026, dated October 26, 2026, came up. It asked the Court to permit the petitioner to “convert/reclassify the present Public Interest Litigation into a regular writ petition under Article 226” and to direct the Registry to assign a regular writ petition number.
One site, inspected in 1981 and again in 2015
The Bench went through the reports on record. The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Survey Division, Seoni, inspected the site on March 16, 1981 and marked the proposed location in Topo Sheet No. 55N/6. A fresh inspection took place in 2015, and the State sanctioned the project on November 16, 2015.
Administrative approval came on November 2, 2017, for irrigating 410 hectares at an estimated cost of Rs 948.35 lakh, and the work was awarded to contractor M/s Arjun Singh Baghel under an agreement of January 29, 2018. Taking the records together, the Court held that the site chosen in 1981 and in 2015-16 was “one and the same” and that the dam’s location had not changed. It described the scheme as an important water resources project for Seoni that “has not progressed at all”.
What Parashar had asked for
Petitioner Rishi Parashar had moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in 2019 over the Patan Kanera Irrigation Project. His prayers were for a direction to the State to build the dam according to the layout plan he relied upon, for an order dated September 16, 2019 to be set aside, for the records relating to letters and reports of June 11 and June 24, 2019 to be called, and for an independent inspection of the site before the sanctioned plan was cancelled.
An earlier petition, W.P. No. 13382 of 2019, had been disposed of on July 19, 2019, with a direction to submit a fresh representation to the State, to be decided along with any objections.
Why the order matters
Public interest litigation rests on the premise that the petitioner has no private stake. The order signals that a litigant who invokes that jurisdiction, and keeps a public project on hold through it, cannot switch the case back to a private dispute when the hearing turns against him. It also reflects the High Court’s concern with the cost that long-pending petitions impose on infrastructure meant for the public, and its willingness to impose costs even where a petition is ultimately withdrawn.
Case Title: Rishi Parashar v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others [Writ Petition No. 21068 of 2019]
Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-JBP:89590
Bench: Chief Justice Alpesh Y. Kogje and Justice Vivek Jain, High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur
Date of Order: November 4, 2026
For Petitioner: Advocate Krishna Kumar Pandey with Advocate Ashmita Chand
For State: Government Advocate Dr. Siddharth Singh Chouhan
For Intervenor: Advocate Alok Vagrecha with Advocate Abhinesh Soni
Thanks for reading LawChakra
Get the day’s key court rulings by email or WhatsApp. Free.