Rajindra vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 10810 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 9
 

 
Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 717 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Rajindra
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar,Amar Chandra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sher Bahadur Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Sher Bahadur Singh, learned counsel appearing for Gaon Sabha.

This writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing respondents-authorities to take appropriate action against respondent no.7 for not making construction of Panchayat Bhawan on gata no.444/0.097 Hect. (Navin Parti Land), situated in village Tikola, Block and Tehsil Jalalabad, District Shahjahanpur, in compliance of order dated 20.11.2021 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by respondent no.2, in public interest at large."

At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha has placed before the Court the order passed in Writ-C No.32709 of 2021 by the Division Bench of this Court on 18.04.2022, in which, similar controversy was raised by one Parbati, and following order was passed:-

"Instructions filed by Sri Jai Singh Chandel, learned Standing Counsel are taken on record.

Heard Sri Nand Lal Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jai Singh Chandel, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.1 & 2, Sri Pramod Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 and Sri H.K. Asthana, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.4 and 5.

This Court on 08.12.2021 while entertaining the present writ petition proceeded to pass the following order:

"Petitioner claims to be a co-sharer of Plot No.571 situated in Village Takola, Tahuki, Dulramai, Block and Tehsil Jalalabad, District Shahjahanpur and has approached this Court with a grievance that the Gram Pradhan is illegally and arbitrarily constructing Panchayat Bhawan on her land without any acquisition or consent on her part.

Attention of the Court has been invited to an order of the District Magistrate, Shahjahanpur dated 20th November, 2021 and it is urged that despite intervention by the District Magistrate, the illegality on part of the Gram Pradhan continues.

Learned Standing Counsel may obtain instructions by the next date.

The authorities shall ensure that without any acquisition or consent on part of the petitioner, no construction is raised over the petitioner's land.

List on 22nd December, 2021 as fresh.

Learned counsel for the petitioner will also serve the notice upon the counsel appearing for the Gram Pradhan within 24 hours in order to enable him to obtain instructions."

Thereafter on 06.01.2022, 24.01.2022, 22.02.2022 and 04.04.2022 the following orders were passed in the present writ petition:

"06.01.2022

Learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha is in receipt of instructions, according to which the subject land is now recorded in the name of Aruna Devi. She had gifted the land to the Gaon Sabha for construction of Panchayat Bhawan over it.

Let counter affidavit be filed bringing on record the stand of the respondents, with the supporting evidence.

Put up as fresh on 24 January 2022."

"24.01.2022

It is a case of the petitioner that Aruna Devi, treating the petitioner's land as her own had gifted the same to the Gaon Sabha.

Learned counsel for the petitioner may implead Aruna Devi in the array of the parties.

Place this case as a fresh case on 17.2.2022."

"22.02.2022

Counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted two weeks time to file rejoinder affidavit.

Put up as fresh on 22.3.2022. "

"04.04.2022

Order on Impleadment Application No.4 of 2022

This impleadment application is allowed.

Office is directed to carry out necessary amendment in the array of parties.

Order on the Memo of Writ Petition

List again as fresh on 18.4.2022 along with connected matter in the next week, showing the name of Sri Sher Bahadur Singh as counsel for the Respondent- Gaon Sabha.

In the meantime, learned Standing Counsel may seek instructions or may file counter affidavit in view of the fact that the District Magistrate has also noted that construction is being raised in an unauthorized manner."

This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being sought to be initiated by the petitioner for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 to comply its order dated 20.11.2021 and restrain the respondent no.3 from constructing the Panchayat Bhawan over Gata No.571, admeasuring 0.1740 hectare recorded in the name of the petitioner as well as in the name of her sons, situated at Village Takola, Tahuki, Dulramai, Block and Tehsil Jalalabad, District Shahjahanpur.

Learned counsel for the petitioner while addressing the Court has sought to argue that the land being Khata No.40, Gata No.571, admeasuring 0.1740 hectare is recorded in the revenue record in the name of the petitioner alongwith her sons being Netrapal and Ramesh and allegation has been sought to be levelled in the present writ petition that the respondent no.3 on the strength of the fact that he happens to be the present Pradhan is trying to illegally encroached upon and make illegal constructions over Gata No.571, admeasuring 0.1740 hectare, khatauni referable to fasli year 1417-1422.

Today, when the matter was taken up, Sri Jai Singh Chandel, learned Standing Counsel has forwarded a copy of the instructions dated 25.01.2022, so received by him, under the signature of Sub-Divisional Officer, Jalalabad, District Shahjahanpur in connected Writ (C) No.1088 of 2022 (Smt. Aruna Devi Vs. Sate of U.P. and Others). He argued that the controversy so sought to be raised in both the petitions pertains to the same gata itself and thus on the strength of the instructions so received in connected writ petition has made a statement at bar while referring to paragraph no.7 of the instructions so received that the further constructions and encroachment over the gata in question has been forestalled.

When confronted with the said situation, learned counsel for the petitioner has made a statement at bar that now the writ petition has rendered infructuous but he has requested that the facts pertaining to stand taken with respect to encroachment and construction so sought to be reflected in the instructions may also be taken note of while deciding the present writ petition.

Sri H.K. Asthana, learned counsel has filed a short counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent nos.4 and 5 and has argued that the petitioner does not possess any title over the land in question which she is seeking to claim in the writ petition, however, this Court while deciding the controversy in the light of the relief as sought in the present writ petition is not required to go into the issue of title as to who is the owner of the gata in question as remedy lies elsewhere and any party if aggrieved with the same can take recourse of the remedy as available in law and there is no need for adjudicating the same at this juncture in the present writ petition.

Considering the issue in question coupled with the subsequent development which has cropped up pursuant to the instructions so sought to be forwarded by the learned Standing Counsel the present writ petition need not be detained any more in the board as the same is liable to be disposed of in the light of the instructions so placed by the learned Standing Counsel as referred to above.

Accordingly, the present writ petition is consigned to record leaving it open to the parties to take appropriate legal remedy as available under law.

Needless to point out that this Court has not adjudicated the matter on merits but decided the matter in the light of the instructions so placed by the learned Standing Counsel as well as the short counter affidavit filed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents no.4 and 5."

He then contended that another Writ-C No.1088 of 2022 was filed seeking similar relief, wherein following order was passed:-

"Re: Civil Misc. Withdrawal Application No. Nil of 2022

Heard Sri H.K. Asthana alongwith Sri Sanjay Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant, Sri Sher Bahadur Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.5 as well as Sri Jai Singh Chandel, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4.

The present petition has been filed with the following prayer:

"A- ISSUE, a writ order in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 20.11.2021 passed by respondent no.2.

B. ISSUE, a writ order/ direction in the nature of suitable mandamus directing the respondent authorities to install/construct the Panchayat Bhawan for the Gram Panchayat Tikola in the light of anonymous resolution of gaon sabha over the arazi no.571 donated by the petitioner considering the larger interest of gaon sabha.

C. ISSUE, any other and further relief which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

D. Award cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner"

Learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner states that the petitioner does not want to press the present writ petition and the same may be dismissed as withdrawn.

In such view of the matter, present withdrawal application stands allowed and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

Office to give number to the withdrawal application.

Re: Writ Petition

Present petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

Interim order, if any, stands vacated."

He then contended that another Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.1284 of 2022 was filed for the same relief in which the following order was passed:-

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos1 to 4 and Sri Sher Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

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 No.6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 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.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 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."

Lastly, he contended that one more Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.1798 of 2022 has been filed for same relief, which is pending consideration and is listed today.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from the perusal of record, I find that number of petitions have been filed raising similar grievance through different persons. As the matter has already attained finality by the order of Division Bench of this Court on 18.04.2022, no interference is required by this Court.

The present writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

Order Date :- 12.4.2023

SK Goswami