Jan Sarmarpan Yuva Samiti Thru. ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 25147 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:59547-DB
 
Court No. - 1
 

 
Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 838 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Jan Sarmarpan Yuva Samiti Thru. President Prabhakar Shukla Lko.
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Lko. And Another
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Kumar Shukla
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra
 

 
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.

Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.

(1) Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar, holding brief of Sri Rahul Kumar Shukla for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Ms. Maria Fatima, holding brief of Sri Gaurav Mehrotra for the opposite party no.2.

(2) Three specific preliminary objections have been raised against the maintainability of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in Public Interest. Firstly, it is argued that the writ petition instituted by the Society is not supported with a resolution authorizing the President of the Society to institute the writ petition. It is secondly urged that the credentials of the Society for the purposes of filing the instant writ petition in public interest are highly doubtful. In absence of any premise set up in the petition to satisfy the requirements of PIL with reference to the objects of the society, Ms. Maria Fatima appearing for the opposite party no. 2 has argued that the petition on that account may not be maintainable. It is thirdly urged that the matter at hand is purely a service matter, therefore, in view of law settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments, the writ petition does not deserve to be entertained. Reliance has been placed upon the following judgments to support the arguments:

(i) Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others Vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others; (1998) 7 SCC 273; and

(ii) Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2005) 1 SCC 590.

(3) Sri Pradeep Kumar, holding brief of Sri Rahul Kumar Shukla for the petitioner has not been able to offer any plausible justification in response to the preliminary objections raised by the learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

(4) In these circumstances, the preliminary objections raised by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 deserve to be sustained and the PIL not being maintainable deserves rejection at the admission stage.

(5) The writ petition is, thus, dismissed.

Order Date :- 18.9.2023

Sanjay