Allahabad High Court
Vinay And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief ... on 6 January, 2023
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 1
Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 561 of 2022
Petitioner :- Vinay And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Urban Development Deptt. , Civil Secrt. Lko And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Niraj Singh,Anshuman Singh,Dr. Lalta Prasad Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Hemendra Kumar Bhatt,Lalta Prasad Misra,Prafulla Tiwari
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
Heard Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for petitioners, Shri Anuj Kumar Mishra, holding brief of Dr. Lalta Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no.5 Ms. Anupama Singh, learned Standing Counsel for State/respondents No.1 to 4 and perused the material brought on record.
The instant Public Interest Litigation (P.I.L.) has been filed by the petitioners, seeking following reliefs:-
"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the Notification No.1355/Nau-6-2022-14 C.V./2020 dated 28.07.2022 as contained in Annexure no.2 to the writ petition and the Govt. Order No.2005/Nau-6-2020-14 C.V./2020 dated 24.12.2020 after summoning the original record from the opposite party no.1, so far as the same relates to the Gram Panchayats Sukaipur, Chatura Behad, Gulramau and Laikalan, Tehsil Mahmoodabad, District Sitapur.
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the opposite party no.1 to de-notify the villages of the petitioners as Smaller Urban Area of Nagar and inclusion in the Palika Parishad Mahmoodabad, District Sitapur."
Learned counsel for respondent no.5 and learned Standing Counsel have 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 petitioners have 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 present petition.
In response, learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners are a citizen of India and resident of District Sitapur, hence they are having right to raise the grievances concerned by filing public interest litigation.
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 petitioners 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 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 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 petitioners have failed to submit before this Court regarding their 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.
(Manish Kumar, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 6.1.2023
Shubhankar
