Laxmikant Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 6029 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

Court No. - 10
 

 
Case :- P.I.L. CIVIL No. - 11505 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Laxmikant Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy.Urban Plann./Devpt.&Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amar Nath Dubey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra
 

 
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

1. Heard Shri Amar Nath Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents No.1, 4 and 5 and Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 and 3, through video conferencing.

2. The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner in the nature of Public Interest Litigation. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a resident of Phoolbag Colony, Kursi Road, Police Station Gudumba, District Lucknow and that the petitioner is a public spirited, peace loving and law abiding citizen. It is the case of the petitioner that the private-respondent No.6 and his associates are illegally constructing a five floor apartment near Metro Hospital, Kanchana Bihari Marg, Lucknow without the approval of a sanctioned map from the Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow, accordingly, the said constructions are absolutely illegal.

3. It has further been submitted that the Prescribed Authority of the Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow has already taken note of the aforesaid offending constructions and have initiated proceedings under Section 27 of the U.P. Urban, Development and Planning Act, 1973 and in furtherance thereof have also sealed the constructions in terms of Section 28(A) of the Act of 1973.

4. It is also alleged that despite the offending constructions having been sealed, the private-respondent and his associates have started raising illegal constructions. An FIR was also lodged against the private-respondent No.6, who despite the same, has continued with the constructions.

5. The petitioner further submits that this information was also conveyed to the Station House Officer, Police Station Gudamba, Lucknow as well as the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow, however, no action has been taken by them.

6. It has also been stated by the petitioner that even the authorities of the Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow despite being informed of the fact that after sealing of the offending constructions, the respondent No.6 is continuing to raise the construction. They have merely responded by saying that an FIR has been lodged and if at all any illegal constructions would be found, the same would be demolished, however, no constructive or positive action has been taken, hence, in the aforesaid backdrop, the petitioner has preferred the instant petition seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties No.1 to 5 to restrain the private-respondent No.6 not to make any illegal construction as well as directing the respondents No.2 and 3 to comply with the order passed by the Prescribed Authority.

7. Upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioner as well as from the perusal of the record, the Court finds that the instant petition suffers from vice of non-compliance of the provisions contained in Chapter-22 Rule-1(3-A) of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. Time and again, the Apex Court as well as this Court has emphasized that a public interest litigation is not to be entertained lightly especially where it starts working contrary to the purposes for which it was evolved.

8. The Apex Court in the case of State of Uttranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors., reported in (2010) 3 SCC 402 has held as under:

"143. Unfortunately, of late, it has been noticed that such an important jurisdiction which has been carefully carved out, created and nurtured with great care and caution by the courts, is being blatantly abused by filing some petitions with oblique motives. We think time has come when genuine and bona fide public interest litigation must be encouraged whereas frivolous public interest litigation should be discouraged. In our considered opinion, we have to protect and preserve this important jurisdiction in the larger interest of the people of this country but we must take effective steps to prevent and cure its abuse on the basis of monetary and non- monetary directions by the courts.

144. In BALCO Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India & Others AIR 2002 SC 350, this Court recognized that there have been, in recent times, increasing instances of abuse of public interest litigation. Accordingly, the court has devised a number of strategies to ensure that the attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be allowed to be used for suspicious products of mischief. Firstly, the Supreme Court has limited standing in PIL to individuals "acting bonafide." Secondly, the Supreme Court has sanctioned the imposition of "exemplary costs" as a deterrent against frivolous and vexatious public interest litigations. Thirdly, the Supreme Court has instructed the High Courts to be more selective in entertaining the public interest litigations.

170. In Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware (supra) this court again cautioned and observed that the court must look into the petition carefully and ensure that there is genuine public interest involved in the case before invoking its jurisdiction. The court should be careful that its jurisdiction is not abused by a person or a body of persons to further his or their personal causes or to satisfy his or their personal grudge or grudges. The stream of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants.

171. In Neetu (supra) this court observed that under the guise of redressing a public grievance the public interest litigation should not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the Executive and the Legislature.

172. In M/s. Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. (supra) this court observed that the judges who exercise the jurisdiction should be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of PIL, an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity- seeking is not lurking. The court should ensure that there is no abuse of the process of the court.

173. When we revert to the facts of the present then the conclusion is obvious that this case is a classic case of the abuse of the process of the court. In the present case a practicing lawyer has deliberately abused the process of the court. In that process, he has made a serious attempt to demean an important constitutional office. The petitioner ought to have known that the controversy which he has been raising in the petition stands concluded half a century ago and by a Division Bench judgment of Nagpur High Court in the case of Karkare (supra) the said case was approved by a Constitution Bench of this court. The controversy involved in this case is no longer res integra. It is unfortunate that even after such a clear enunciation of the legal position, a large number of similar petitions have been filed from time to time in various High Courts. The petitioner ought to have refrained from filing such a frivolous petition.

174. A degree of precision and purity in presentation is a sine qua non for a petition filed by a member of the Bar under the label of public interest litigation. It is expected from a member of the Bar to at least carry out the basic research whether the point raised by him is res integra or not. The lawyer who files such a petition cannot plead ignorance."

9. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ajai Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & others reported in 2010 SCC online 1168 while considering the Apex Court decisions has held as under:-

"Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs. State of W.B., (2004) 3 SCC 349, was pleased to hold as under:-

"14. The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the applicant;

(b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests; (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the Court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the Executive and the Legislature. The Court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busy bodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of Pro Bono Publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect.

34. Unless an aggrieved party is under some disability recognized by law, it would be unsafe and hazardous to allow any third party be a member of the Bar to question the decision against third parties."

10. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bindhesh Pandey vs. State of U.P. & Ors., bearing PIL Civil No.23322 of 2019, decided on 30.08.2019, of which one of us (Jaspreet Singh, J.) was a Member, noticing the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court held that where the development authority in terms of the provisions of the Act has already initiated proceedings and the matter is between the private party as well as the authority concerned in such matters, the grievance at the behest of a third party, who otherwise has no locus-standi, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling in question such proceedings are usually not maintainable.

11. It is only in a public interest litigation where the concept of locus-standi is diluted for the noble purposes to ensure that such grievance raised relate to basic human rights or such matters relating to such affected persons, who are poor, deprived, illiterate or disabled persons or belonging to the disadvantageous section of the society who otherwise are unable to approach the Court, in such cases, a public spirited person may file a public interest litigation to raise the issues affecting such sections of the society.

12. Apparently, in the instant case, neither the petitioner has disclosed the credential nor the issue raised is such which affects large number of persons or affects those persons who belong to the disadvantageous section of the society who otherwise cannot approach the Court for various reasons.

13. This Court further finds that there is no clear averment as to how the instant petition can qualify to be treated as a public interest litigation.

14. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not indicate nor it has been stated in the petition that the alleged proceedings initiated by the Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow against the respondent No.6 has finally culminated in an order and whether against such an order any statutory appeal has been preferred or not. In absence of any material or submissions to the effect that the private-respondents have exercised their statutory remedy and that all orders passed by the Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow have became final. In such a situation, this Court cannot take note nor is impressed with the fact that merely because a construction has been identified as illegal it involves any public interest litigation.

15. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered view that there is no element of public interest involved. Consequently, for all the reasons as noted above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition and the same is dismissed.

16. That party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

17. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

Order Date :- 7.6.2021

Rakesh/-