Allahabad High Court
Sri Bhagwandas vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 5 May, 2023
Bench: Kshitij Shailendra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 52
Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 514 of 2023
Petitioner :- Sri Bhagwandas
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rituvendra Singh Nagvanshi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Deepak Gaur
Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.
1. Heard Shri Rituvendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Deepak Gaur, learned counsel for the respondent No.5-Gaon Sabha.
2. This PIL petition has been filed raising allegations against various private persons and referring to various orders passed in the judicial proceedings.
3. The present PIL petition has been filed with the following relief:-
"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the Respondents to implement their own order and remove unauthorized occupation from Gata No.107 area 1.947 hectare and Gata No.205 area 2.343 hectare situated in Mauza Surawali, Pargana and District Jalaun, otherwise the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and injury."
4. Learned Standing Counsel has placed instructions before this Court which are taken on record. The instructions reveal that pursuant to the judicial proceedings held, names of various private persons have been recorded in the revenue records. Instructions further go to show that previously petitioner's real brother Shiv Das had filed a PIL Petition No.2229 of 2022 (Shiv Das v. State of U.P. & 5 Ors.) which was dismissed by this Court on 22.11.2022 and the present petition has been filed by the petitioner i.e. brother of Shiv Das in respect of same land. It is also mentioned that petitioner and his brother are habitual of filing cases. Insofar as, the locus of the petitioner in the present case is concerned, in 'paragraph 5' of the present PIL petition, it is stated that the petitioner is a social worker, no details of alleged social work have been given in the entire PIL petition.
5. In view of the above, I find that frame of the present PIL petition is not in consonance with the requirement of amended provisions of Allahabad High Court Rules-1952 (in short 'the Rules-1952') amended pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors., 2010 AIR SCW 1029, whereby Rule (3-A) was added in Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Rules-1952 making it mandatory for the petitioner to disclose his credentials in clear terms whenever a writ petition in the nature of PIL is filed. Apart from the fact that none of the private persons, against whom, serious allegations have been levelled, has been arrayed as a "party" to the present PIL petition, the petitioner has failed to disclose his credentials. Moreover, in the light of existence of judicial orders, some of which have been annexed by the petitioner and some of which have been referred by the State in the instructions, the prayer sought in the present PIL petition cannot be granted.
4. The present PIL petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.5.2023
Jyotsana
