Allahabad High Court
Satya Narayan Yadav vs State Of U.P.Thru.District ... on 19 January, 2023
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Subhash Vidyarthi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 1
Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 36550 of 2019
Petitioner :- Satya Narayan Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.District Magistrate Pratapgarh And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Ojha
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
Heard Shri D.K. Ojha, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri V.P. Nag, learned Standing Counsel for State/respondents and perused the material brought on record.
The instant Public Interest Litigation (P.I.L.) has been filed by the petitioner, Satya Narayan Yadav, seeking following reliefs:-
"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing to the opposite party no.2 i.e. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pratapgarh to conduct the inquiry in pursuance of the order dated 4.08.2018 passed by District Magistrate, Pratapgarh for removing the illegal encroachment from the land gata no.274 recorded as Madarsa in Revenue Records, situated at Village- Mahuli, Tehsil- Sadar, District- Pratapgarh.
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing to the opp. parties to take the decision on the representation of the petitioner dated 03.08.2018 as well as order dated 04.08.2018 passed by District Magistrate, District Pratapgarh as contained as annexure no.1 to this writ petition by speaking and reasoned order within a period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court."
Learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of present public interest litigation and argued 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 to which learned counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy the Court regarding the credential of the petitioner in the aforesaid terms.
Having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record, it is relevant to mention that it is the duty of this Court to ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive and oblique motive behind filing of P.I.L. In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the P.I.L., the courts must encourage genuine and bona fide P.I.L. and effectively discourage and curb the P.I.L. filed for extraneous considerations.
It would also be appropriate for this Court for encouraging the genuine P.I.L. and discouraging the P.I.L. filed with oblique motives. The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a P.I.L. It is also well settled that the Courts before entertaining the P.I.L. should ensure that the P.I.L. 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 High Coandurt 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 bona fide 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.
A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gurmet Singh Soni Vs. State of U.P. and others : 2021 (5) ADJ 409, noticing the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court in State of Uttaranchal (supra) and other judgments of the Apex Court on the issue, has dismissed the public interest litigation.
So far as credential of the petitioner is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to submit before this Court regarding his own credentials and as such, we are of the considered opinion that the present writ petition is misuse and abuse of the process of the Court.
In the present case, we are not satisfied that this is a genuine petition filed in public interest so as to invoke the jurisdiction in the public interest under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The instant P.I.L. is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 19.1.2023
Shubhankar
