Raj HC questions bona fides of petitioner in highway weighbridge PIL, mandates strict disclosure of personal interest

Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has raised serious concerns regarding the maintainability of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the removal of royalty check posts and weighbridges from National Highways, observing that the petitioner appears to have concealed significant personal and commercial interests in the mining industry. The Division Bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sunil Beniwal emphasized that a litigant invoking PIL jurisdiction must approach the court with “utmost transparency and good faith” to ensure the process is not abused for private malice.

The matter, Himmat Singh Gehlot vs State of Rajasthan (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24826/2025), was instituted to address alleged illegal installations of royalty check posts and weighbridges (Dharamkantas) on National Highways and ring roads across the state. The petitioner argued that these installations endanger public safety and sought a state-wide audit and uniform safety guidelines. In earlier proceedings, the Court had directed a private company (Respondent No. 12) to relocate its weighbridge because it was situated within 75 meters of a National Highway.

During the resumed hearing, the private respondents submitted that the weighbridge in question had already been removed and relocated beyond the 75-meter limit in compliance with court orders. However, they vehemently challenged the petitioner’s standing, alleging that the PIL was a “motivated exercise” aimed at settling personal scores. The respondents produced evidence suggesting that the petitioner’s brother operates competing weighbridges and that his family is deeply involved in the mining business. They further alleged that the petitioner had concealed his own criminal antecedents, including three FIRs.

The Court noted a “candid admission” from the petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner’s father is indeed engaged in the mining business, though responses regarding his brother’s weighbridge operations and criminal history were described as “evasive”. The Bench observed that such concealment is “writ large” and suggests the petition may not be entirely free from private interest. The Court highlighted that if the petitioner’s family is directly affected by the functioning of weighbridges used for royalty collection, the litigation could be motivated by commercial considerations rather than pure public spirit.

Referring to Rule 385-F of the Rules of the High Court of Rajasthan, 1952, the Court reiterated that PILs must disclose the petitioner’s social standing, source of finance, and any personal interest or litigation history. The Court stated that these rules serve as essential safeguards to screen out “motivated, proxy or publicity-oriented litigation”. The Bench warned that if the allegations of private interest are substantiated, the petitioner must face consequences for his conduct.

While the private respondents’ weighbridge has been relocated to ensure road safety, the Court has allowed the petitioner time to file an additional affidavit or rejoinder to address the factual averments regarding his family’s business interests and personal background. The Court reaffirmed that while it would continue to examine the larger public safety issues, it would not allow its extraordinary jurisdiction to be “polluted by unscrupulous litigants” for personal gain.

Case Title

Himmat Singh Gehlot vs State Of Rajasthan

Case Number

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24826/2025

Court

High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur

Bench

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Monga and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sunil Beniwal

Date of Order

13 March 2026

Advocates

For the Petitioner:

Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Rishi Soni

For the Respondents:

Dr. Sachin Acharya, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Piyush Sharma

Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, A.A.G.

Mr. Deepak Chandak, A.G.C.

Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari

Mr. Rajat Dave

Ms. Khushbu Choudhary