“Public Interest Must Be Genuine”: Bombay HC Dismisses FIR Plea in RIL Gas Dispute

The Bombay High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking registration of an FIR against Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) and others over alleged illegal extraction of natural gas from ONGC wells, holding that the plea, framed as a public interest action, was an abuse of process and lacked bona fides, particularly in light of the petitioner’s unexplained delay and absence of any demonstrable public law element.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Suman Shyam refused to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register an FIR, observing that the petition did not satisfy the threshold required for invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

The Court held that entertaining such a petition based merely on certain judicial observations, without independent material or locus, would have serious consequences and could unjustifiably harm the reputation of corporate entities.

The petitioner had sought a direction to the CBI to register an FIR under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including offences relating to theft, criminal breach of trust, and conspiracy, alleging that RIL had extracted gas from ONGC operated wells in the Krishna-Godavari basin through unauthorized means.

The foundation of the petitioner’s case rested on findings in a technical report and subsequent proceedings involving disputes between ONGC and RIL, including arbitration and litigation before the Delhi High Court.

According to the petitioner, a report by De Golyer and MacNaughton had indicated unauthorized extraction of gas, and a committee headed by Justice A.P. Shah (Retd.) had quantified the alleged loss.

It was contended that despite these findings, no criminal proceedings were initiated, compelling the petitioner to approach the High Court after the CBI allegedly failed to act on his complaint.

The CBI, in its affidavit, opposed the petition, stating that the dispute between ONGC and RIL was essentially civil in nature and had already been the subject of judicial and arbitral proceedings.

It emphasized that no direction for registration of an FIR had been issued by any court, and that neither ONGC nor the Union of India had sought criminal prosecution.

The agency also pointed out that ONGC, being in possession of all relevant contractual and technical material, was the appropriate party to take any action if warranted.

RIL, through its detailed reply, strongly contested the maintainability of the petition, alleging suppression of material facts and accusing the petitioner of acting with malafide intent.

It characterized the petition as a publicity-driven exercise aimed at damaging the company’s reputation.

RIL submitted that the allegations of “theft” or “sideways drilling” were baseless and contrary to the contractual framework governing exploration activities under the Production Sharing Contract.

It further traced the history of the dispute, emphasizing that it arose out of contractual interpretation and had already undergone arbitration and judicial scrutiny.

The petitioner’s counsel also contended that RIL had no right to be heard at the stage of considering registration of an FIR, relying on Supreme Court precedent to argue that suspects are not entitled to a pre-registration hearing. However, the Court rejected this contention, noting that where specific allegations are made against identifiable parties, principles of fairness may require that they be heard, particularly in writ proceedings.

The Bench also noted that the petitioner had failed to advance substantive arguments beyond asserting a general right to set the criminal law in motion. Crucially, the Court questioned the delay of nearly 15 years in approaching the High Court, observing that the explanation offered based on subsequent judicial findings was insufficient and unconvincing.

The Court further underscored that petitions styled as public interest litigation must demonstrate a clear public law element and genuine public purpose.

It found that the petitioner had failed to establish his credentials as a public-spirited individual, noting inconsistencies in his claims about his professional background and social work.

Furthermore, Court observed that such petitions are often filed by disgruntled individuals or motivated actors and cautioned that entertaining them without scrutiny could have damaging consequences for businesses and public institutions alike.

The bench also took note of the broader context of the dispute, including the arbitral award in favour of RIL in 2018, subsequent proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and the pendency of a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. It held that in light of this ongoing legal framework, the attempt to initiate criminal proceedings through a writ petition was misplaced and unwarranted.

Concluding that the petition was “clearly an abuse of the process of the Court,” the Bench dismissed it, reiterating that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is meant to advance public interest and cannot be invoked to pursue private or oblique motives.

Case Title: Jitendra Punamchand Maru v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors.

Bench: Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Suman Shyam

Date of Judgment: 27.03.2026