Sonakali vs State Of U.P. And 7 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 4420 ALL

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 4420 ALL
Judgement Date : 27 May, 2022

Allahabad High Court

Sonakali vs State Of U.P. And 7 Others on 27 May, 2022

Bench: Prakash Padia




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 18
 

 
Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 996 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Sonakali
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Atul Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Avinash Chandra Srivastava
 

 
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Avinash Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent No. 4/Gaon Sabha .

The petitioner has preferred present Public Interest Litigation inter-alia with the prayer to direct the respondents authorities to remove the illegal encroachment by private respondent over Gata No.501 area 3.4080 hectare situated at Mauza Sandalpur Tehsil Shikohabad District Firozabad which is recorded as Funeral Land (Marghat) in the revenue records.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present PIL by contending that though the petition is ostensibly filed in the public interest, the petitioner has not made due disclosure as required by sub-rule (3A) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, which was amended in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors., 2010 AIR SCW 1029, and prays for dismissal of the present PIL.

In reply to the preliminary objection, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a public spirited individual and law abiding citizen. He has been actively involved with the socio-political issues of the society in general in particular.

Having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record, I am of the opinion that it is the duty of this Court to ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive and oblique notice behind filing of the PIL. In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, the Courts must encourage genuine and bonafide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations. It would also be appropriate for this Court to encourage the genuine PIL and discourage the PIL filed with oblique motives. The Courts should, prima facie, verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL. It is also well settled that 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.

Following the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of State of Uttaranchal (supra), Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 was amended by including sub-rule (3A) in Rule 1, which is 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 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 him or anyone associated with him, or any undue loss to any person, body of persons or the State."

This amendment was brought out in compliance of the judgment of the Supreme Court in order to ensure that the jurisdiction in public interest is invoked for genuine purposes by persons, who have bonafide credentials and who do not seek to espouse or pursue any extraneous object. Otherwise, the jurisdiction in public interest can become a source of misuse by private persons seeking to pursue their own vested interests.

Black's Law Dictionary, 10th Edition, defines the word 'credential' to mean 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.

So far as credential of the petitioner is concerned, he has simply stated that he is a public spirited person. Nowhere it is indicated that what public or social work has been done by him. Thus, this Court has no hesitation to note that the petitioner has not disclosed any credential. Even otherwise, there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner has preferred the instant petition espousing the cause of any member of a disadvantageous section of the society or any person, who is downtrodden or for certain disabled person, who is unable to approach the Court or that the matter in question relates to infringement or denial of any basic human right to such marginalized section of the society which enables the petitioner to espouse their cause. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to submit before this Court regarding his own credentials and the present petition is misuse and abuse of the process of the Court.

After the aforesaid order was passed, a prayer has been made by the counsel for the petitioner to permit the petitioner to file a fresh Public Interest Litigation with better credential as has been incorporated under the High Court Rules, 1952.

This prayer has not been opposed by the counsel for the respondents.

In this view of the matter, present Public Interest Litigation is dismissed as not pressed with liberty to file fresh Public Interest Litigation.

Order Date :- 27.5.2022

saqlain