High Court Dismisses PIL Against NTPC Sipat, Imposes ₹50,000 Fine

he High Court has dismissed the PIL filed by the Regional Transporter Welfare Association against NTPC Sipat. The court termed the petition as an abuse of the legal process and imposed a fine of Rs 50,000 on the petitioner and also confiscated the security fund. The case was heard in a double bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, Justice Ravindra Kumar Agarwal.

The association had filed a PIL through its president Shatrughan Kumar Laskar demanding a ban on overloading of trucks filled with fly ash coming out of NTPC Sipat and instructions to send all trucks covered with tarpaulin to prevent pollution. It had also pleaded for strict compliance of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act on the Sipat-Bilaspur-Baloda route.

During the hearing, the court found that the petition was not motivated by goodwill, there is personal interest in it. The petitioner himself is a transporter and has a direct business interest in the transportation contracts of NTPC. The petitioner had also written a letter to the authorities demanding priority for local transporters and fixing freight rates, which clearly shows his personal interest.

The court also mentioned that a PIL is already pending on the same issue. The court has taken suo motu cognizance. Despite this, the petitioner filed a parallel petition. The court termed it not public interest but personal business competition. The court also found that an FIR was lodged against the petitioner in July 2025, in which he was accused of stopping vehicles engaged in ballast transportation work related to NTPC, threatening drivers and disturbing law and order. Hiding this fact in the petition, according to the court, raises serious questions on its credibility.

PIL is a tool to protect the rights of the poor and deprived sections, not a weapon of personal revenge or business rivalry. Such frivolous PILs waste the valuable time of the court and hurt the sanctity of this extraordinary jurisdiction. On this basis, the Court dismissed the petition at the initial stage itself. The security amount deposited by the petitioner was also confiscated.