[2025:RJ-JP:5473-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil (PIL) Writ Petition No. 1665/2025 Bhagwan Sahay Choudhary S/o Soona Ram Choudhary, Aged About 71 Years, R/o Ward No. 7, Bhadalo Ki Dhani, Gopuri, Tantiyawas, Rampura Dabari, Amer, Jaipur- 303704 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. Jaipur Development Authority, Through Its Commissioner, Address- Ram Kishor Vyas Bhawan, Indra Circle, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Jaipur- 302004 Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anish Bhadala For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kuri, JDA with Mr. Dharma Ram HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Order 07/02/2025 1. Heard. 2. This Public Interest Litigation, to say the least, is completely frivolous. We record our dismay that the petitioner who has already been held to be a person not acting bona fide in approaching PIL forum, has again filed PIL touching upon certain issues against development being made by the Jaipur Development Authority (for short ‘JDA’) in the area in respect of which PIL petition was earlier filed and dismissed by this Court vide order dated 04.12.2024 passed in D.B. Civil (PIL) Writ [2025:RJ-JP:5473-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-1665/2025] Petition No.16858/2024- Ramjilal Yadav & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 3. The increasing trend of abusing the process of law in the name of PIL is a matter of concern. When the petitioner herein, namely; Bhagwan Sahay Choudhary had filed earlier PIL petition challenging the development being made by the development authority in the same area, this Court had clearly recorded that petitioner is not bona fide acting in probono capacity and, therefore, at the instance of the PIL petitioners, the Court would not examine the legality and validity of the action. The issue raised in the PIL was kept open. Taking into consideration that the petitioner was Sarpanch, the PIL was dismissed with a cost of Rs.5,000/-. 4. The petitioner has again filed this PIL touching upon similar issues challenging development being made by the JDA. The conduct of this petitioner was noted by this Court and recorded in the previous order that he is not a person with bona fide. Filing of second petition by the petitioner clearly shows that he is bent upon misusing the forum of the Court. 5. Therefore, this PIL is dismissed with heavy exemplary cost of Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid by the petitioner with the Rajasthan Legal Services Authority, Jaipur. (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ N.Gandhi/Gaurav/09