Allahabad High Court
Jan Adhikar Manch vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 13 May, 2024
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Ashutosh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:86145-DB
Court No. - 42
Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1404 of 2023
In Re:
Civil Misc. Review Application No.94 of 2024
Petitioner :- Jan Adhikar Manch
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.
(Order on Delay Condonation Application)
Heard Sri K.K. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Sharad Chandra Upadhyay for the State..
Delay in filing the present application for review is explained to the satisfaction of the Court. Delay is, accordingly, condoned.
Application stands allowed.
Order on Review Application
Review is sought by the petitioner of the judgment and order passed by this Court on 20.9.2023 in PIL Petition No.1404 of 2023. The order dated 20.9.2023 reads as under:-
"At the very outset, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondent submits that the present PIL is relating to service matter. PIL in respect of service matters is not maintainable.
In view of above, there is no merit in the writ PIL.
It is consigned to record, accordingly."
This petition was dismissed on the statement of learned State counsel that this petition is a PIL which is otherwise not maintainable in service matters. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the order of the Court was passed in his absence and it could not be pointed out that the relief sought in the matter was in the nature of quo warranto.
Since the relief sought in the writ is to issue a writ in the nature of quo warranto, therefore, the order of the Court dated 20.9.2023 is recalled.
Application stands allowed.
Order on Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is styled as quo warranto petition and following prayers are made:-
"I. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of QUO WARRANTO commanding/directing the respondents not to give effect to any promotion of Assistant Engineer to Executive Engineer of mechanical and electrical cadre against the post of civil cadre.
II. Issue a Writ, Order or suitable direction commanding/directing the respondent no.1, 2 & 3 to initiate suitable process for the post of Executive Engineer in electrical and mechanical cadre to absorb the Assistant Engineers of that cadre through process of promotion."
At the very outset an objection is taken to the maintainability of the aforesaid petition on the ground that the person whose appointment is challenged is neither arrayed as a party nor is it specified as to who are the persons whose promotions are being challenged.
The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Jan Adhikar Manch, wherein following three respondents alone are arrayed as a party to the writ:-
"1. State of U.P. Through its Chief Secretary, U.P. at Lucknow,
2. State of U.P. Through its Principal Secretary/Additional Chief Secretary, (Rural Development), Lucknow,
3. Director/Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Service, Lucknow."
We find substance in the objection of the respondents, inasmuch as quo warranto petition can be filed challenging the appointment of a person to hold the public office so that the authority to hold such office could be shown by him. Such petition cannot be filed without impleading the person affected. It is otherwise not specified as to who are the persons whose promotions are otherwise challenged. Law is otherwise settled that without impleading the persons likely to be affected in the writ no relief can be granted by the Court (see: Prabodh Verma & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. AIR 1985 SC 167).
This petition in the manner instituted, therefore, cannot proceed any further. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.5.2024
RA
