Allahabad High Court
Sanjay Kumar (Parshad Pratinidhi) And ... vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 27 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 3252 of 2025
Sanjay Kumar (Parshad Pratinidhi) and another
..Petitioners(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and 5 others
..Respondents(s)
Counsel for Petitioners(s)
:
Ajay Kumar, Vishesh Rajvanshi
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
S.C., Jagdish Pathak, Harsh Vardhan Gupta, Manoj Kumar Singh, Prajit Chaturvedi for Vineet Pandey, Harshit Pandey
Chief Justices Court
HONBLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE
HONBLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
1. This petition, purportedly in public interest, has been filed by one Sanjay Kumar claiming himself to be Parshad Pratinidhi and one Rajaram Kannaujia @ Baba, Secretary of Vyapar Mandal, Teliyarganj, Prayagraj with a prayer to quash auction notification (Annexure-6 to the petition) with regard to plot No. I, Azad Market, Mendauri Yojna, Prayagraj to the extent of subject property with a further prayer restraining respondent nos. 4 and 5, i.e. the officials of U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (the Parishad) from alienating and changing the nature of the aforesaid plot which is allegedly being used as a public park.
2. The petitioner no. 1 is husband of Corporator of Ward No. 55 and claims to be a social worker, whereas petitioner no. 2 is Secretary, Vyapar Mandal, Teliyarganj, Prayagraj. It is stated in the petition that in the year 1982-83, a residential scheme was launched by the Parishad in the name of Chandrashekhar Azad Nagar Yojna, Mendauri and a layout of the said project was approved by the then Development Authority; certain residential houses were built by the Parishad for general public and commercial construction of shops was also made and that plot No.I in that area has been reserved as a 'park', the maintenance whereof was handed over by the Parishad to Nagar Nigam vide letter dated 02.04.1981.
3. It is further stated that on the request of local public, a public toilet was constructed on the spot by the Nagar Nigam over the land reserved for park and the said toilet remained functional from year 2001 to September, 2024, i.e. for a period of about 23 years, and just before Mahakumbh-2025, Corporator of Ward No. 55 requested the Nagar Nigam for re-construction of the public toilet which request was adhered to and public toilet was re-constructed and beautified.
4. A further statement has been made in the petition that earlier a Writ Petition No. 2524 of 2001 (Umashanker Tripathi Vs. Mukhya Abhiyanta, Nagar Nigam, Allahabad and others) was filed before this Court in which, by way of an interim order dated 23.01.2001, further constructions on the spot were restrained and as far as the cause giving rise to the instant petition is concerned, it is stated that on 18.09.2025, the Parishad has issued an auction advertisement in national newspapers regarding the property in dispute and also uploaded the same on official website but since user and nature of the park cannot be changed as per the provisions of Sections 5 and 8 of U.P. Parks, Playgrounds and Open Spaces (Prevention and Regulation) Act, 1975, the auction proposed to be held is illegal and, therefore, reliefs claimed in the petition be granted.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has made submissions that since this Court, vide interim order dated 23.01.2001 passed in Writ Petition No. 2524 of 2001, has already retrained constructions over the property in dispute, i.e. the park, the auction notice and proceedings proposed to be undertaken on that basis, be set aside and plot in question be maintained and reserved as a park. Reliance has also been placed on Annexure-1 to the petition, which is said to be and pleaded as a layout plan approved by the Parishad/Development Authority and by pointing out three parks towards eastern side of the said map/plan, submission has been made that since in the layout plan the plot in question along with two other plots has been depicted as park, a restraint order be passed and auction proceedings be nullified.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for Nagar Nigam as well as Parishad have made submissions that filing of this petition is a gross abuse and misuse of the process of law, inasmuch as, very recently, the petitioners had filed Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 1636 of 2025 [Sanjay Kumar (Parshad Pratinidhi) and another Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others] seeking a direction to the authorities to take appropriate action for restarting the development and beautification work of the public toilet situated over the same property and, after contest, the said petition was dismissed by order dated 12.08.2025, however, no disclosure of the said fact has been made in the petition. It is further submitted that the property in question belongs to the Parishad and, therefore, the auction proceedings undertaken by the Parishad are in accordance with law requiring no interference by this Court. Further submission has been made that Annexure-1 to the petition is not a layout plan approved by the Parishad/Development Authority but a plan got prepared from an Architect by owner of a property, namely, Shri Rajendra Prasad Jaiswal, for the purposes of raising commercial and residential constructions over his land which is not the property in dispute and, therefore, an attempt to mislead the Court has been made and, hence, the petition be dismissed with exemplary cost.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
8. The principal contention of learned counsel for the petitioners to the effect that the plot in question is reserved as a park in the layout plan approved by the Parishad/Development Authority stands belied from perusal of Annexure-1 to the petition, which is not a copy of any approved layout plan, rather the same is apparently a building plan got prepared by one Rajendra Prasad Jaiswal, owner of a plot intending to raise construction of residential/commercial nature thereon. The said plan has been sanctioned by the Parishad and, under no circumstances, it can be said to be a layout plan prepared by the Parishad/Development Authority itself under any law. The petitioners have taken aid of the said map by pointing out existence of three parks towards eastern side of the map, however, except indicating the same, they have utterly failed to connect the park with the impugned auction notice (Annexure-6 to the petition).
9. As regards reliance placed on an interim order dated 23.01.2001 passed in Writ Petition No. 2524 of 2001 is concerned, surprisingly it has not been stated in the petition as to what happened to the said writ petition, however, from perusal of page No. 30 of this petition, it is apparently clear that the Writ Petition No. 2524 of 2001 was dismissed for want of prosecution on 20.01.2006. Nothing has been brought on record to indicate that the writ petition was ever restored. Therefore, placing reliance on an interim order passed in a writ petition which was subsequently dismissed, is a further attempt to mislead the Court.
10. Further, on perusal of paragraph no. 8 of the earlier Writ Petition No. 2524 of 2001, it stands reflected that size of the alleged park has been described as 3.658 mtr x 6.096 mtr, i.e. the total area is about 19 square metres. No park can exist in such a small area and dimensions given in the earlier petition are not sufficient for this Court to hold that any park at all exists on the spot and/or the said plot is the same land where the allotment is proposed pursuant to the impugned auction proceedings.
11. We find that very recently, in relation to the same property, Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 1636 of 2026 was filed by the petitioners wherein a prayer was made to take action for restarting the development and beautification work of the public toilet. In that matter, an attempt was made to convince the Court that existence of toilet was attempted to be vanished by the authorities by way of auctioning the land terming it to be a commercial plot and, after considering the submissions made, this Court dismissed the said petition by order dated 12.08.2025. The entire order is reproduced herein under:-
1. This petition, purportedly in public interest, has been filed by the petitioners seeking a direction to respondents no. 3, 4 and 5 to take appropriate action for restarting the development and beautification work of the public toilet situated at Ward No. 55, Azad Market, Teliyarganj, Lucknow Main Road, Prayagraj.
2. Submissions have been made that toilet was existing for a very long time, however, during the Mahakumbh, on account of the beautification drive, the said toilet was demolished and now, despite repeated representations made in this regard, the toilet is not being reconstructed and, therefore, the respondents be directed to reconstruct the toilet.
3. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents no. 4 and 5, inter alia, indicating that the land in question is owned by Awas Vikas Parishad, the toilet was constructed by Nagar Nigam and despite repeated representations made in this regard to the Nagar Nigam to vacate the land in question, which is a commercial plot, the same was not done and now once during the beautification drive for Mahakumbh, the toilet, which was in dilapidated condition, has been demolished, the land in question is in the possession of the Awas Vikas Parishad, which is intending to use it as a commercial plot and auction the same. Indications have been made that area in question is about 280.50 square meters and is having a market value of about Rs. 2.28 crores. Further indications have been made that around the area in question, there are three toilets/toilet complexes and, therefore, the indications made in the petition seeking a direction for constriction of a toilet cannot be countenanced.
4. Counsel for the petitioners attempted to make submissions that the action of respondents is not justified inasmuch as for about forty years, a toilet was functioning at the spot and now, despite various representations made in this regard, land is now sought to be used as a commercial plot and not for the purpose of toilet, which is required in the area.
5. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the documents produced along with the affidavit filed, it is apparent that land in question is owned by Awas Vikas Parishad and merely because the same was being used as a toilet and was being maintained by the Nagar Nigam, the petitioners cannot seek a mandamus that the area/land in question would continue to be used as a public toilet. Once the plot in question has been earmarked as a commercial plot and around the area, requisite facilities are available, we don't find any public interest involved in the petition, so as to interfere with the action of the respondents.
6. In view of above, there is no substance in the petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed.
12. We may observe here that not only the petitioners of the previous petition but also their counsel are same and in respect of the same property an attempt is now being made to somehow restrain settlement of the commercial plot which already stood vested in the Parishad. Further, instructions furnished by the learned counsel for the Parishad indicates that the area of the plot in question in respect whereto auction notice has been published, is 212.16 square metres, which is apparently different from the one indicated in the earlier petition that is approximately 19 square metres.
13. As regards the public interest litigation, the Honble Apex Court in State of Uttranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others, 2010 AIR SCW 1029, after 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. This 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.
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 Honble 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 Honble 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.
18. In Dr. B. Singh vs. Union of India and others, (2004) 3 SCC 363, the Honble 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 was 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.
19. In Chandra Shashi Vs. Anil Kumar Verma, (1995) 1 SCC 21, the Honble Apex Court has observed that to enable the courts to ward off unjustified interference in their working, those who indulge in immoral acts like perjury, prevarication and motivated falsehoods have to be appropriately dealt with, without which it would not be possible for any court to administer justice in the true sense and to the satisfaction of those who approach it in the hope that truth would ultimately prevail. People would have faith in courts when they would find that "truth alone triumphs" is an achievable aim there.
20. In Buddhi Kota Subbarai (Dr.) Vs. K. Parasaran, (1996) 5 SCC 530), the Honble 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.
21. In Arunima Baruah Vs. Union of India (2007) 6 SCC 120, Honble Supreme Court held that it is trite law that to enable the Court to refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction when material facts are suppressed. It was further held that a person invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of the court cannot be allowed to approach it with a pair of dirty hands.
22. In Prestige Lights Limited Vs. State Bank of India, (2007) 8 SCC 449, the Honble 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.
23. In K.D Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and others, (2008) 12 SCC 481, Honble Supreme Court held that no litigant can play "hide and seek" with the courts or adopt "pick and choose" and one should come with candid facts and clean breast. Suppression or concealment of material facts is forbidden to a litigant or even as a technique of advocacy. In such cases the Court is duty bound to discharge rule nisi and such applicant is required to be dealt with for contempt of Court for abusing the process of the court.
24. In Amar Singh Vs. Union of India (2011) 7 SCC 69, Honble Supreme Court held that Courts have, over the centuries, frowned upon litigants who, with intent to deceive and mislead the courts, initiated proceedings without full disclosure of facts. Courts held that such litigants who come with "unclean hands", are not entitled to be heard on the merits of their case.
25. In Kishore Samrite Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012 (10) SCALE 330, the Honble Supreme Court held that the entire journey of a Judge is to discern the truth from the pleadings, documents and arguments of the parties, as truth is the basis of the Justice Delivery System..............With the passage of time, it has been realized that people used to feel proud to tell the truth in the Courts, irrespective of the consequences but that practice no longer proves true, in all cases. The Honble Apex Court further observed that the Court does not sit simply as an umpire in a contest between two parties and declare at the end of the combat as to who has won and who has lost but it has a legal duty of its own, independent of parties, to take active role in the proceedings and reach at the truth, which is the foundation of administration of justice. Therefore, the truth should become the ideal to inspire the courts to pursue. This can be achieved by statutorily mandating the Courts to become active seekers of truth...... It is the bounden duty of the Court to ensure that dishonesty and any attempt to surpass the legal process must be effectively curbed and the Court must ensure that there is no wrongful, unauthorized or unjust gain to anyone as a result of abuse of the process of the Court. One way to curb this tendency is to impose realistic or punitive costs.
26. In view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, now it is well settled that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final. Suppression of material facts from the court of law, is actually playing fraud with the court. The maxim supressio veri, expression falsi, i.e. suppression of truth is equivalent to the expression of falsehood, gets attracted in such cases including the present one.
27. Having gone through the record of the petition and having considered the submissions made, we are fully satisfied that the petitioners have committed gross abuse and misuse of the process of law and filing of this petition in purported public interest is nothing but a device to somehow restrain utilization of the property in dispute by the Parishad and/or beneficiaries of the auction proceedings and, that too, when a challenge made by filing previous PIL No. 1636 of 2025 has already been discarded. Filing of the previous PIL and order passed therein has been deliberately concealed and it is only after the respondents placed before this Court the order dismissing the previous PIL, the counsel for the petitioners tried to justify filing of second petition contending that it has been filed in view of the stand taken by the Parishad in the previous proceedings.
28. The facts above are sufficient to conclude that the petitioners have committed gross abuse of the process of law and the counsel has also not been fair to the Court, therefore, we deem it appropriate to dismiss this petition by imposing a cost of Rs. 50,000/- upon the petitioners so that they may understand the consequences of misusing the process of law and do not take the Court proceedings for granted.
29. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 50,000/-, which shall be deposited by the petitioners before the Registrar General of this Court within a period of three weeks from today, failing which, the Registrar General shall send a communication to the District Magistrate, Prayagraj to recover the amount of cost from the petitioners by adopting all coercive measures within next one month.
30. Compliance report regarding recovery of cost shall be placed by office on record of the present petition.
(Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)
October 27, 2025
AKShukla/-
