Leader of Opposition Partap Singh Bajwa’s public interest litigation seeking action over a ruling party MLA’s alleged statement on booth capturing was on Monday dismissed as withdrawn, with Rs 25000 costs by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The order came as the Bench took note of Bajwa’s non-disclosure of a pending FIR against him.Bajwa had moved the court seeking directions to Punjab and other official respondents to initiate stringent action against Kulwant Singh Bazigar for his alleged remarks while addressing a gathering.Directions were also sought for the state election commissioner to deploy adequate police force and independent observers at all sensitive polling booths, in order to prevent any misuse of power, coercion and violence during the municipal polls. Initiation of steps were also sought to ensure that voters were not subjected to fear, pressure or booth capturing during the polling process.However, the Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry turned the spotlight on maintainability after Punjab Advocate-General Maninderjit Singh Bedi objected that the petitioner had failed to disclose his antecedents while invoking PIL jurisdiction. Bedi contended that the plea, filed on the eve of polling, did not disclose a pending FIR against Bajwa, though disclosure of credentials and antecedents was mandatory in PIL matters.Responding to the arguments, Bajwa’s counsel argued that the petition before the Bench concerned public welfare and protection of democratic processes. Referring to the MLA’s alleged remarks, he submitted, “It murders our democracy. Elections are foundation of our democracy.” He maintained that the omission was a “bona fide” one and attempted to distinguish the FIR matter as unrelated proceedings.He also argued that disclosure of pending proceedings was not a mandatory requirement, while filing a PIL, though the practice could not be done away with while seeking relief such as anticipatory bail. In any case, the Bench hearing the FIR matter had ruled against coercive action.        The High Court, however, made it clear that a PIL litigant could not decide for himself what facts deserved disclosure. “You will have to leave it to the court to decide after disclosing all those facts…. Whether it is negative or positive, leave it for the court to decide,” the Bench observed.The Chief Justice further told the petitioner, “You are becoming a judge of your own cause.” The court, during the hearing, made it clear that the applicable rules required disclosure of “credentials and the direct or indirect personal motive involved”, especially in PIL proceedings.Dictating the order, the Bench observed that the material fact about the registration of FIR ought to have been disclosed”.Faced with the court’s observations on suppression and maintainability, Bajwa sought permission to withdraw the petition. The High Court allowed the withdrawal but dismissed the PIL with costs.