Allahabad High Court
Atul Kumar Gupta vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ... on 23 December, 2022
Bench: Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 2
Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 944 of 2022
Petitioner :- Atul Kumar Gupta
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. Excise Lko. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Dwivedi,Arun Kumar Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel for the respondents.
The present petition in the nature of Public Interest has been filed seeking following main reliefs:-
"(i) Issue, a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to shift/transfer the Country Liquor Shop, Digiha Naka, District- Bahraich in any other place which is running near Kanti Kuber Hospital in violation of provision of Excise Act as well as the Excise Rules.
(ii) Issue, a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to renew the license of Country Liquor Shop, Digiha Naka, District- Bahraich for next excise year i.e. 2023-24 at the existing place i.e. near Kanti Kuber Hospital, Bahraich."
A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned State counsel that the present petition is not maintainable as a Public Interest Litigation in view of the fact that in entire petition, the compliance of directions/guidelines issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment passed in the case of State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal reported in (2010) 3 SCC 402 has not been made. It is also stated that in this petition, the petitioner has also not indicated the relevant credentials as required under Chapter XXII Rule 1(3-A) of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.
He on the basis of a letter dated 22.12.2022 written by District Excise Officer, Bahraich to Chief Standing counsel of this Court further submits that the petitioner has made several complaints regarding shifting of liquor shop and upon enquiry, it was found that the same was in operation in the premises of petitioner till 2017-18. The liquor shop is being operated as per U.P. Number and Location of Excise Shop Rules, 1968. The petitioner himself is the aggrieved person and no one else has ever made any objection or complaint in this regard. Thus, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
On a query being put in regard to compliance of Chapter XXII Rule 1(3-A) of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, the petitioner alleges to have indicated his credentials in paragraph No. 4 of the writ petition, however, a perusal of the same shows that he has not disclosed his qualification so as the occupation.
At this stage, it would be apt to refer here the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court regarding expression "credential" in the judgment dated 05.11.2020 passed in P.I.L. CIVIL No. 19497 of 2020 (Narendra Kumar Yadav v. State Of U.P. Through Prin.Secy. Urban Development And Ors.), which on reproduction reads as under:-
"The dictionary meaning of the word 'credentials' is the qualities and the experience of a person that make him suitable for doing a particular job. The Oxford English-English-Hindi Dictionary, 2nd Edition, explains credentials as the quality which makes a person perfect for the job or a document that is a proof that he has the training and education necessary to prove that he is a person qualified for doing the particular job.
Black's Law Dictionary, 10th edition, defines 'credential' a document or other evidence that proves one's authority or expertise; a testimonial that a person is entitled to credit or to the right to exercise official power.
Considering the aforesaid definition(s) of the term 'credential' and the law on entertaining the PIL what we feel is that for maintaining the PIL the petitioner in the writ petition, in brief, should state, with proof, that what he has done and what expertise he has on the subject matter of PIL as also that what exercise (sufficient) has been carried out by the petitioner before the administration prior to knocking the door of the Court and that what injury would be caused to the downtrodden of the society or public at large if cause under PIL is not espoused by the Court."
From the aforesaid, it is evident that the petitioner has not complied with the directions/guidelines issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra) and the law laid down by this Court regarding expression "credential" in the case of Narendra Kumar Yadav (supra) as also he has not indicated in the petition the relevant credentials as required under Chapter XXII Rule 1(3-A) of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.
It is made clear that we have not adjudicated the case on its merits.
It would be apt to observe that it is expected from the District Excise Officer to make strict compliance of Rules of 1968 in regard to allotment of shops in the District concerned.
With the aforesaid, the present petition is dismissed. Costs made easy.
Order Date :- 23.12.2022
Arun/-
