Allahabad High Court
Dilshad Ahmad vs Nhai Thru. Chairperson New Delhi ... on 21 October, 2022
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Saroj Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 1
Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 763 of 2022
Petitioner :- Dilshad Ahmad
Respondent :- Nhai Thru. Chairperson New Delhi And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd Shadab Khan
Counsel for Respondent :- Sarvesh Kumar Dubey,C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J.
Heard Shri Mohd. Shadab Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Pratyush Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the material brought on record.
In this Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner has raised a grievance that direction be issued to the respondents no. 3-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sultanpur and respondent no.4-Director of the Indian Oil Corporation not to issue 'No Objection Certificate' to the respondent no.6-Smt. Archana Yadav for construction and commissioning of Retail Outlet, which, in our view, can very well be raised by the petitioner before the appropriate forum where he can raise this issue.
The Apex Court in a series of decisions analyzing the scope of public interest litigation has held that in petty matters, public interest litigation should not be entertained. The Court has also put a caution that a very heavy cost should be imposed in case of petty matters where the precious judicial time is wasted. Reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others, (2010) 3 SCC 402, relevant part of the which reads 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.
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.
178. We must abundantly make it clear that we are not discouraging the public interest litigation in any manner, what we are trying to curb is its misuse and abuse. According to us, this is a very important branch and, in a large number of PIL petitions, significant directions have been given by the courts for improving ecology and environment, and directions helped in preservation of forests, wildlife, marine life etc. etc. It is the bounden duty and obligation of the courts to encourage genuine bona fide PIL petitions and pass directions and orders in the public interest which are in consonance with the Constitution and the laws."
Morso, 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, we are also of the view that the petitioner has failed to submit before this Court regarding his own credentials and the present petition in the form of Public Interest Litigation is nothing but a misuse and abuse of the process of the Court.
In view of the above, the public interest litigation is dismissed.
(Mrs. Saroj Yadav, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 21.10.2022
Ajit/-
