Manish Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 13082 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 52
 

 
Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 472 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Manish Kumar Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sharad Kumar Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pramod Kumar Sinha,Rahul Singh,Rameshwar Prasad Shukla
 

 
Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

Order on Civil Misc. Impleadment Application No.02 of 2023.

1. Considering the facts stated in the affidavit supporting impleadment application as well as during the course of arguments, I feel it necessary to permit impleadment of Anand Prakash and five others as respondents in the present writ petition.

2. Shri Pramod Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the applicants seeking impleadment shall incorporate the said impleadment during the course of the day in the present writ petition.

3. The impleadment application is allowed.

Order on Writ Petition.

1. Heard Shri Sharad Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents, Shri Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no.5-Gaon Sabha and Shri Pramod Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for newly impleaded respondents.

2. This writ petition, in the nature of a public interest litigation, has been filed with the prayer to direct the respondent nos.2 and 3 to take immediate steps for restraining the respondent no.5, not to make water tank in Gata No.515 situated in Village-Karkhia Rustam Sarai, Tehsil -Sagari, District-Azamgarh which is public utility recorded as "Pokhari". Further prayer is to direct the respondent nos.2 and 3 to decide the application filed by the petitioner on 24.01.2023.

3. A perusal of aforesaid application shows that the grievance raised by the petitioner is that water tank be not established on Gata No.515 and order be passed for construction of water tank over Gata Nos.518, 507, 522,756-k and 33. The persons whose impleadment application has been allowed claim to be rightful occupants over the land covered by Gata No.518 and alongwith impleadment application a copy of plaint of suit filed by them under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code-2006 (in short 'the Code-2006') has also been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that land covered by Gata No.515 is a "Pokhari" and, therefore, no water tank can be constructed thereon as earlier efforts were made to maintain the said Gata as "Pokhari".

5. Learned Standing Counsel has placed instructions before this Court which are taken on record. The instructions reveal that the land suggested by the petitioner by means of an application dated 24.01.2023 is not suitable for want of availability of requistie area on the spot. The instructions further speak regarding registration of case against the occupants of Gata No.518 being Case No.T202115060706938 (Report v. Dheerendra) in which 28.02.2023 was a date fixed. Instructions further reveal that water tank is being constructed under the Jal Jeevan Mission Scheme of the Government.

6. Learned counsel for the newly impleaded respondents has vehemently opposed the writ petition on various grounds:-

(a) The first ground is that the attempt of the petitioner is to somehow obtain an order against the newly impleaded respondents as his prayer in the application itself was to construct the water tank over the land belonging to the newly impleaded persons.

(b). Secondly, it has been argued that the writ petition in the nature of public interest litigation should not be entertained as the petitioner has failed to disclose his credentials which is a mandatory requirement under the amended provisions of Allahabad High Court Rules-1952 i.e. Chapter XXII Rule 1 (3-A). The petitioner has stated that he is a social activist and has filed the present public interest litigation in public interest.

7. In reply thereto, 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.

8. Having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and having 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 PILs and discourage the PILs 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 PILs is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury.

9. Following the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors., 2010 AIR SCW 1029, Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 was amended by including sub-rule (3-A) in Rule 1, which is as follows:-

"(3-A) 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."

10. This amendment was brought 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.

11. 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.

12. So far as credential of the petitioner is concerned, he has simply stated that he is a social activist. 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.

13. Shri Sinha has placed reliance upon Division Bench judgement of this Court dated 25.04.2022 in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.696 of 2022 (Namaha v. State of U.P. & Ors.) wherein also this Court has condemned such public interest litigation petitions which are filed with ulterior motive and are not in conformity with the requirements of the amended provisions of the Allahabad High Court Rules 1952, as stated hereinabove.

14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the petitioner has not disclosed his credentials in the writ petition and, therefore, in view of the above discussion, this public interest litigation petition cannot be entertained.

15. Even otherwise, on merits, I am satisfied that establishment of a water tank over the land under control of Gaon Sabha and under Scheme of the Government particularly Jal Jeevan Mission is a sole prerogative of the Government Authorities and once there is a consideration of various Gatas in the light of the Scheme, it cannot be said as to which land should be used for construction activity and which should not be.

16. In the present case, whereas the newly impleaded respondents may have some right over the land covered by Gata No.518, insofar as Gata No.515 or any other Gata is concerned, it does not appear appropriate to the Court to intervene in the matter, otherwise, a situation would arise where the entire Scheme of the Government to establish water tank may stand frustrated.

17. There is another reason for not granting any relief in the present public interest litigation that is if establishment of a water tank in itself is in the interest of public, then Government machinery cannot act on the instructions and as per the whims of the petitioner, who, as aforesaid, has failed to satisfy the Court regarding involvement of public interest in the matter and his credentials.

18. In view of the above discussion, the present public interest litigation petition is dismissed.

Order Date :- 27.4.2023

Jyotsana