Devi Prasad vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy Revenue ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 12944 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?
 

 
Court No. - 19
 

 
Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 613 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Devi Prasad
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy Revenue Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. And 5 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Kumar Srivastava Ram Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Upendra Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel for the State-respondent Nos. 1 to 4 & 6 and Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5/Gram Sabha.

A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of State and Gram Sabha that the preset 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. They also stated that concerned have not been made parties in this petition. It is also stated that the petitioner has also not indicated in this petition the relevant credentials as required under Chapter XXII Rule 1(3-A) of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.

On a query being put in regard to compliance of Chapter XXII Rule 1(3-A) of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the same has been made in para 20 of the petition.

At this stage, it would be appropriate to quote para 20 of this petition, which on reproduction reads as under:-

"20. That petitioner has no personal or other private interest of land gata no.766 area 0.5950 hectare and he is in the public interest enlarge as petitioner have a right to file public interest litigation in the matter that there is a authoritative pronouncement by Hon'ble Supreme court or High Court on the question raised and that the result of litigation will not lead to any undue loss to any person body or any persons or the state."

From the aforesaid, it is evident that the petitioner has not complied with the directions/guidelines issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Balwant (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.

In view of above, the petition is accordingly dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition with appropriate pleadings.

Order Date :- 14.9.2022

Arun/-