Allahabad High Court
Rakesh Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 18 January, 2023
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Subhash Vidyarthi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 1
Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 36 of 2023
Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
This Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, Rakesh Kumar, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.2-District Magistrate, Gonda to consider and decide his representation dated 20.09.2022 regarding irregularities in distribution of house under Prime Minister Housing Scheme in Village Panchayat Devrada, Vikas Khand Mujehana, Gonda in the years 2016-17 and 2017-18 within the stipulated period.
Heard Shri Dinesh Kumar Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Amitabh Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State/respondents no. 1 to 5, Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondent no.6/Gaon Sabha and perused the material brought on record.
Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of State has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the instant Public Interest Litigation petition and pointed out that earlier for the same cause of action and for the same relief, the petitioner had filed Writ-C No. 8792 of 2022 : Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy available to him under law vide order dated 07.12.2022. He argued that the petitioner had filed a complaint/ application dated 20.09.2022 before the District Magistrate, Gonda, alleging that the erstwhile Pradhan of the village had committed irregularities in distribution of house under Prime Minister Housing Scheme in Village Panchayat Devrada, Vikas Khand Mujehana, Gonda in the years 2016-17 and 2017-18 and the District Magistrate, Gonda had directed to conduct an enquiry on the said complaint and the enquiry report is awaited as reflected from Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition. His submission is that the main grievance of the petitioner is against ex-pradhan of the village, therefore, the petitioner is having remedy under U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats (Removal of Pramukhs and Up-Pramukhs, Adhyakshas and Up-Adhyakshas) Enquiry Rules, 1997 for redressal of his grievance, but instead of availing the said remedy as provided under law in compliance of the order dated 07.12.2022, the petitioner has filed the instant Public Interest Litigation, which is not maintainable.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the fact that for the same cause of action and for the same relief, the petitioner has earlier filed Writ-C No. 8792 of 2022, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail the appropriate remedy vide order dated 07.12.2022, but inadvertently, in paragraph-1 of the writ petition, the petitioner has wrongly mentioned in the petition that earlier petition filed by him was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition under the provision vide order dated 07.12.2022. He also does not dispute the fact that the main grievance is against the ex-pradhan of the village and as such, the petitioner has remedy under U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats (Removal of Pramukhs and Up-Pramukhs, Adhyakshas and Up-Adhyakshas) Enquiry Rules, 1997 for redressal of his grievance.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the facts that the main grievance of the petitioner is against the ex-pradhan of the village and the petitioner is having remedy under U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats (Removal of Pramukhs and Up-Pramukhs, Adhyakshas and Up-Adhyakshas) Enquiry Rules, 1997 for redressal of his grievance and further enquiry instituted on the complaint of the petitioner regarding the issue raised in the instant writ petition is pending as is evident from Annexure No.4 to the writ petition, we find force in the submission of the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that the Public Interest Litigation is not an appropriate remedy under the facts and circumstances of the case and as such, it is not maintainable. Moreso, 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 Apex Court passed in the case of State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors. : 2010 AIR SCW 1029.
For the reasons aforesaid, the instant Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable and is, accordingly, dismissed.
.
(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 18.1.2023
Ajit/-
