Aftab Hussain vs State Of U P And 3 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 3439 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Court No. - 9
 

 
Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 343 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Aftab Hussain
 
Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajan Upadhyay,Ramesh Upadhyaya(Senior Adv.)
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Yadav,J.

Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

(Per: Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J.)

Heard Shri Ramesh Upadhyay, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Rajan Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3, who are State functionaries. Respondent no. 4, Shri Rakesh Kumar Jayant, is the Tehsildar of the Tehsil Dadri, Gautam Budh Nagar.

This petition has been filed with the following prayers:

"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the no. 1 to transfer respondent no. 4 outside the District Gautam Budh Nagar.

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the no. 1 to expedite the enquiries pending against respondent no. 4."

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent no. 4 has been posted for long in District Noida and has been demanding illegal money from the residents of the area. It is alleged that one Rashid Ali, who is the relative of Gram Pradhan Noorpur has moved a complaint against the respondent no. 4 before the Commissioner, Meerut regarding illegal gratification being sought from him. The Commissioner, Meerut directed the District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar to deal with the matter. It is alleged that a false FIR was lodged by the Area Lekhpal at the instance of the respondent no. 4 against the aforesaid Rashid Ali. However, the Lekhpal himself filed an affidavit before the Senior Police Authorities stating that the FIR has been lodged at the instance of the respondent no. 4 by him and he had not verified the facts of the FIR. It is alleged that, thereafter, a final report was submitted by the police on 21.11.2020 in respect of the aforesaid FIR. It is further alleged that the aforesaid Rashid Ali moved an application before the Adhyaksh of the Vidhan Sabha, Uttar Pradesh for getting the investigations done and on the order passed by the Adhyaksh of the Vidhan Sabha, Uttar Pradesh, the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) is conducting an enquiry, which is pending. The learned counsel has referred to further instances of the corruption against the respondent no. 4. The learned counsel has stated that since the matter relates to corruption by an official of the Government, this Public Interest Litigation be entertained, particularly, in view of the order dated 8.11.2012 of this Court in matter of Madhav Samaj Nirman Samiti Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2012 (11) ADJ 629 (DB) passed in Civil Misc. (P.I.L.) Writ Petition No. 30825 of 2012 and the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others reported in (2010) 3 SCC 402.

Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the petition on the ground that actually, the matter pertains to a personal grudge being held by the aforesaid Rashid Ali against the respondent no. 4 and this petition has been filed at the instance of the Rashid Ali and, therefore, it cannot be said that this petition has not been filed for personal gain or private motive.

The objections raised by the learned Standing Counsel appears to have force. A perusal of the petition reveals that several contentious issues exist between the aforesaid Rashid Ali and the respondent no. 4. The petitioner, who claims to be public spirited individual, has not disclosed as to how he obtained information regarding the disputes between the aforesaid Rashid Ali and the respondent no. 4. A perusal of the contents of the petition and the enclosures thereto reveal that it basically highlights the disputes between the aforesaid Rashid Ali and the respondent no. 4. Though allegations have also been made with regard to a few other complaints, it does not dilute the obvious grudge of Rashid Ali against the respondent no. 4 which the petitioner seeks to espouse. The order/judgements cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are of no assistance to the petitioner. It needs mention that the order dated 8.11.2012 passed by this Court in the matter of Madhav Samaj Nirman Samiti (supra) is an interim order and the petition is still pending. That petition was filed praying, inter alia, for a direction to the State of Uttar Pradesh to transfer two officers of Noida and to declare all orders and decisions taken by those respondents as non est and ineffective. Further direction was also sought upon the respondent no. 1 to initiate enquiry of the entire matter by an independent agency and to restrain the said respondents from holding their respective offices. Considering the allegations made against the two Government Officals posted at Noida, this Court directed the CBI to make a preliminary enquiry in the matter and report it back to this Court within a period of six months and the case was adjourned for a period of six months. Ancilliary directions were also issued by this Court.

The aforesaid case of Madhav Samaj Nirman Samiti (supra) is distinguishable from the facts of the instant case. In the matter of State of Uttaranchal (supra), which case is also of no assistance to the petitioner, the Supreme Court issued certain directions in order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, which are as follows:

"181. ...................

(1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations.

(2) Instead of every individual Judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the Rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this court immediately thereafter.

(3) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL.

(4) The Courts should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL.

(5) The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition.

(6) The Courts should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions.

(7) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation.

(8) The Courts should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations."

Coming to the facts of the instant case, we find that the credentials of the petitioner are unsatisfactory. We may note the contents of paragraph nos. 3, 4 and 5 of the petition which are as follows:

"3. That, the petitioner is the resident of Village Noorpur, Police Station Jarcha, Tehsil Dadari, District Gautam Budh Nagar, and has no personal interest in the cause he is espousing.

4. That, as to the best knowledge of the petitioner, there is no authoritative pronouncement of the High Court or the Supreme Court on the question raised in the present litigation and the result of the present litigation will not lead to any undue gain to the petitioner or any one associated with him or any undue loss to any persona, body of persons or the State.

5. That, the petitioner is a public spirited individual and is filing present Public Interest Litigation to bring to the notice of this Hon'ble Court the continuous posting of respondent no. 4 in District Noida, who is acting in most arbitrary manner contrary to the interest of the residents of Noida therein. Further, on acount of the long posting of respondent no. 4 in District Noida, the respondent no. 4 has developed relations with the dwellers of the area as a result of which he is demanding illegal money and on failure the fulfill the demands of respondent no. 4, false and frivolous FIR are being lodged against them."

It is pertinent to note that following the directions of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of State of Uttaranchal, sub-rule (3A) was inserted in Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Rules of the Court, 1952 which reads as follows:

"(3A) In addition to satisfying the requirements of the other rules in this Chapter, the petitioner seeking to file a Public Interest Litigation, should precisely and specifically state, in the affidavit to be sworn by him giving his credentials, the public cause he is seeking to espouse; that he has no personal or private interest in the matter; that there is no personal or private interest in the matter; that there is no authoritative pronouncement by the Supreme Court or High Court on the question raised; and that the result of the Litigation will not lead to any undue gain to himself or anyone associated with him, or any undue loss to any person, body of persons or the State.

Explanatory Note. - The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its Judgment in C.A. Nos. 1134-1135/02, State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others reported in 2010 AIR SCW 1029, has observed that the process of Court is frequently abused in the name of Public Interest Litigation and has directed all the High Courts to frame rules to prevent the same. The aforesaid amendment is intended to achieve the said objective."

The averments made in the petition are merely a repetition of the words used in sub-rule 3A of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Rules of Court, 1952 without the petitioner being able to demonstrate his credentials. We are not prima facie satisfied with the credentials of the petitioner and the fact that this is bonafide Public Interest Litigation. As a matter of fact, as observed above, it appears to be a grudge being held by the aforesaid Rashid Ali against the respondent no. 4 which the petitioner is seeking to espouse in the present Public Interest Litigation. In case the aforesaid Rashid Ali has any grievance against the respondent no. 4, it is for him to raise the issue before the appropriate forum. We have already noticed that an enquiry is ensuing.

Under the circumstances, we do not find this to be a fit case for interference and this petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

No costs.

 
Order Date :- 15.3.2021
 
A. V. Singh
 
(Jayant Banerji, J.)     (Sanjay Yadav, J.)