Allahabad High Court

Sanjay Kumar Gupta vs State Of Up And 6 Others on 3 July, 2024

Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:107662-DB
 
Court No. - 29
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 487 of 2024
 

 
Appellant :- Sanjay Kumar Gupta
 
Respondent :- State Of Up And 6 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Akshay Prakash Srivastava,Dharmendra Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Hari Narayan Singh,Pradeep Kumar Upadhyay
 

 
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Present intra court appeal has been preferred assailing the validity of the judgment and order dated 10.04.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.71 of 2024 (Sanjay Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. & Ors.), which for ready reference, is reproduced as under:-

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Nari Narayan Singh and Sri Pradeep Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for respondents and perused the record.

2. The present petition has been filed with the following prayer:

"(A). A writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Government respondents to demolish the construction raised by the respondent no. 7 over the land of the Panchayat Bhawan, Pond and School of gram sabha Rastpur Tahsil Maitha District Kanpur Dehat situated at gata no. 334, 341 and 386 and to remove the possession of the respondent no. 7 from the above land of the Gram Sabha Rastpur Tahsil Maitha District Kanpur Dehat."

3. Learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has an alternative remedy to approach appropriate authority by moving an application under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 in view of the judgment passed by this Court in Jahar Singh v. State of U.P. reported in 2017(4) ADJ 619 as well as in Kanhaiya Lal v. State of U.P. and others reported in 2023 (12) ADJ 226.

4. Since the petitioner has an alternative remedy, I am not inclined to entertain the instant petition.

5. In case, the petitioner moves an application under Section 67 of Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, before appropriate authority, the same shall be decided after hearing all the concerned parties in accordance with law.

6. With the aforesaid observation, the petition is disposed of."

3. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent has contended that learned Single Judge has rightly relegated the matter under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short "Code") since there is allegation of illegal occupation on public utility land. In the writ petition, detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the contesting respondent, wherein objection had also been taken in para 6 of the said affidavit that the PIL is not in consonance with Sub Rule (3-A) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules due to concealing and suppressing the material fact and without disclosing the credentials correctly. Instant PIL had been filed by the petitioner only to harass the respondent no.7 and to achieve the personal gain. Several other allegations have also been levelled in the said counter affidavit, which is also on record. Learned counsel for contesting respondent, in support of his submissions, has also placed reliance on the judgment dated 23.2.2024 in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.163 of 2024 (Akbar Abbass Zaidi v. State of U.P. & Ors.). The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment, for ready reference, are reproduced as under:-

".......13. As regards the public interest litigation, the Apex Court in State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra) placing reliance on various previous judicial pronouncements, in order to ensure that Writ Jurisdication may not be misused and abused by the unscruplous litigants, issued various directions. It is necessary to refer to the directions contained in paragraph 198 of the judgment as under:-

"198. In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, it has become imperative to issue the following directions:-

(1) The courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations.

(2) Instead of every individual judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the Rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this court immediately thereafter.

(3) The courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a P.I.L.

(4) The court should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL.

(5) The court should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition.

(6) The court should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions.

(7) The courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL 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.

(8) The court should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations."

14. Our High Court, in furtherance of the directions issued by the Apex Court, incorporated amendment in Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Rules and added sub-rule (3-A) in Rule 1, which reads as follows:-

"(3-A) 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 himself or anyone associated with him, or any undue loss to any person, body of persons or the State."

15. The newly incorporated Rule clearly mandates that the petitioner seeking to file Public Interest Litigation petition should precisely and specifically disclose his credentials and the public cause he is seeking to espouse with clear mention that he has no personal or private interest in the matter. Significantly, requirements incorporated under sub-rule (3-A) are "in addition to specifying the requirements of other Rules in the Chapter." Therefore, this Court feels it appropriate to refer to sub-rule 3(ii) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII which reads as follows:-

"3(ii). If there is any related proceedings pending elsewhere, the full details thereof shall be mentioned."

(emphasis supplied by Court).

16. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid Rules/sub-rules makes it apparently clear that, in case, the said requirements are not fulfilled by the petitioner filing a petition in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation, the High Court would be obliged to deal with such non-compliance as per the judicial pronouncements made by the Apex Court from time to time with regard to abuse and misuse of process of law by filing Public Interest Litigation petitions.

17. In Janata Dal vs. H.S. Chowdhary, (1992) 4 SCC 305, the Supreme Court, apart from making various observations, observed in paragraph No.109 that only a person acting bonafide and having sufficient interest in the proceedings of Public Interest Litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but not a person for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. It further observed that vexatious petition under the colour of PIL brought before the Court for vindicating any personal grievances, deserves rejection at the threshold. (emphasis supplied by Court)

18. In Dr. B. Singh vs. Union of India and others, (2004) 3 SCC 363, the Supreme Court placed reliance on various previous judgments on the issue as to how genuine and ingenuine PIL petitions should be dealt with by the Courts. It clearly laid down that it would be desirable for the courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with cost so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the Courts. It also observed that when there is material to show that a petition styled as a Public Interest Litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal disputes or vendatta to bring to terms a person, not of ones liking, or gain publicity or a facade for blackmail, said petition has to be thrown out. (emphasis suppled by Court).

...........

20. In Buddhi Kota Subbarai (Dr.) Vs. K. Parasaran, (1996) 5 SCC 530), the Supreme Court has held that no litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived or frivolous petitions.

...........

22. In Prestige Lights Limited Vs. State Bank of India, (2007) 8 SCC 449, the Supreme Court observed that it is well settled that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. In exercising extraordinary power, a Writ Court will indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the Court, the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible.

(emphasis supplied by Court)"

4. We have proceeded to examine the record in question and respectfully considered the judgment cited at Bar. Before the PIL Court, it was alleged that respondent no.7 has encroached upon the public utility land. An objection had been taken by the contesting respondent in the said PIL that the same was instituted just to malign the image of respondent no.7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances as well as categorical objection raised by respondents' counsel, learned Single Judge has rightly relegated the matter to avail the remedy under Section 67 of the Code. We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order impugned passed by learned Single Judge so as to make interference in this intra court appeal. As per Section 122B of UPZA & LR Act, which is paramateria to Section 67 of the Code, even the complainant can also institute the proceeding under Section 67 of the Code. Considering the averment, we find that the PIL had been filed in an arbitrary manner just to malign the image of contesting respondent. We also find that instead of availing the remedy under Section 67 of the Code, the petitioner had preferred present appeal, which is an abuse of the process of law and liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.

5. After substantial arguments, once we have shown our inclination to dismiss the writ petition with exemplary cost, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant fairly states that he does not want to press the writ petition.