Madhya Pradesh High Court
Abhay Upadhyay vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 April, 2023
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA
ON THE 3 rd OF APRIL, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 2218 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
ABHAY UPADHYAY S/O LATE SHRI SHANTILAL
UPADHYAY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
ADVOCATE R/O 14, RAJENDRA NAGAR RATLAM
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI GOPAL SINGH BHADORIA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONER)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SAMBHAG AYUKT, UJJAIN SAMBHAG, KOTHI
PALACE UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. JILAD HISH COLLECTOR KARYALAY, RATLAM
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. ANUVIBHAGIYA ADHIKARI SAILANA, TEH.
SAILANA, DISTRICT RATLAM (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. SHRI KUMAR PURUSHOTTAM TATSAMAY
PADASTH COLLECTOR DISTRICT RATLAM AND
PRESENT PADSTHAPNA COLLECTOR KHARGONE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6. KAMIDI THAKUR TATSAMAY PADASTH
ANUVIBHAGIYA ADHIKARI RALAM AND AT
PRESENT ANUVIBHAGIYA ADHIKARI BALAGHAT
(MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA HARI
NAIR
Signing time: 4/5/2023
5:00:28 PM
2
7. YASHDEEP RAWAT TEHSILDAR RAOTI, DISTRICT
RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
8. SMT. MAUSMI KEWAT TATSAMAY PADASTH
TEHSILDAR RAOTI, DISTRICT RATLAM(MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI BHUWAN GAUTAM, LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, JUSTICE SUSHRUT
ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI passed the following:
ORDER
Heard on the question of admission.
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
3. By way of this Public Interest Litigation(PIL), the petitioner is seeking the
following reliefs :-
;kfpdkdrkZ ekuuh; U;k;ewfrZ ls fuEukuqlkj lgk;rk pkgrk gSa fd %&
,- ;g fd, vukosndx.k ds }kjk vuDtlZ [email protected] esa of.kZr tkap izfrosnu ds vuqlkj
vukosnd dz- 8 o iVokjh fo|k vtukj o lksfu;k pkSgku o Mzk;oj fnyhi Mkeksj ds
}kjk vkfnoklh Hkhy lekt ds xzkeh.k oklh ds izfr muls vfrdze .k ds uke ls vR;f/kd
jkf'k ysus ,oa de jlhn dh vksj fojks/k djus ij uqdlku igqapkus rFkk vf/kd jkf'k fn;s
tkus okys o nks"kh gksus ds ckotwn Hkh lqjsUnzflag dks Hkhy leqnk; dk crkdj n.M jkf'k
de vafdr dj jsr voS/k [kuu dk dk;Z djuk crkdj izJ; iznku fd;k tks fjiksZV ls
ifjyf{kr gkssus ls mDr tkap fjiksZV vusDtlZ [email protected] ds vuqlkj nks"kh ds fo:} l[r ls
l[r dk;Zokgh dj Qkstnkjh izdj.k mijksDr /kkjkvksa ds rgr ntZ dj ftEesnkj
inkf/kdkjh dks muds in ls rqjUr gVk;s tkus ckcn ;ksX; fjV tkjh dh tkuk U;k;fgr esa
vko';d gksus ls ;ksX; vkns'k iznku fd;s tksus dh d`ik gksA
ch- ;g fd] vukosnd dze kad 8 o IkVokjh fo|k vtukj o lksfu;k pkSgku o Mzk;oj ds
}kjk xzkeh.k tu ls voS/k jkf'k ,oa fof/k ds foijhr jkf'k ls T;knk jkf'k ysdj de dh
jlhn nsus ,oa mlesa QsjQkj dj izkIr jkf'k dks vius mi;ksx esa ysdj 'kklu dks gkfu
igqapk dj lkoZtfud fgr dks gkfu igqapk;s tkus ls muds fo:} vkijkf/kd izdj.k ntZ
fd;k tkus ckcn ;ksX; vkns'k iznku gksA
lh- ;g fd] vU; dksbZ U;k;ksfpr lgk;rk tks ekuuh; U;k;ky; ;kfpdkdrkZ rFkk
xzkeh.koklh rFkk lkoZtfud fgr esa ;ksX; gks og iznku djus dh d`ik djsaA
4 . Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is an
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA HARI
NAIR
Signing time: 4/5/2023
5:00:28 PM
Advocate by profession and is public spirited person, therefore, the present Public
Interest Litigation has been filed. The official respondents are not taking any
action against one Vidya Ajnar, Patwari Sonia Chouhan, who are committing
fraud with the villagers by misusing their official position and issuing forged
receipts by taking much higher amounts.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/State opposed the
prayer and submitted that the petitioner has not given his complete antecedents
and have also not disclosed as to what public interest work he has performed for
the Society. Learned counsel for the respondents has brought to the notice of this
Court the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Surendra
Pratap Singh Vs. State of M.P. and Others[2019 (1) M.P.L.J. 75] to contend
that the petitioner has failed to produce on record to satisfaction of the Court such
social work in last couple of years in the area in respect of which Public Interest
Litigation is involved. Merely spending money like lawyer's fees from their own
pocket does not satisfy test of locus standi. Therefore, this writ petition is not
maintainable.
6. The Division Bench of this Court in Surendra Pratap Singh(supra), has
referred to the judgment of the Apex Court involving Public Interest Litigation in
the case of State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others[(2010)
3 SCC 402] wherein the Apex Court has laid down certain guidelines to be
followed before exercising jurisdiction of Public Interest Litigation. The guidelines
are as under :-
(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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA HARI
NAIR
Signing time: 4/5/2023
5:00:28 PM
directed to ensure that a copy of the RP 638/2017 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 PIL.
(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."
7. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the present petition,
none of the aforesaid guidelines are satisfied as laid down in the case of State of
Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others(surpa). Therefore, this
writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, the same is liable to be dismissed.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9 . The question which arises for consideration in this Public Interest
Litigation would be whether the same is maintainable at the instance of the
strangers on the pretext that they are social workers.
10. Except the averment in the petition that the petitioner is a social worker
and the petitioner himself is paying the fees of the advocate from his own pocket,
there is no assertion of his activities undertaken in the area of the subject-matter of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA HARI
NAIR
Signing time: 4/5/2023
5:00:28 PM
this writ petition. Simple self-serving statement that the petitioner is a social
worker is not sufficient to invoke the public interest writ jurisdiction of this Court
unless the petitioner is able to produce on record to the satisfaction of the Court
such social work in last couple of years in the area in respect of which the public
interest writ petition is involved. A practice in the cases before this Court is to
make a statement that the petitioner is a social worker and he is spending the
money including the lawyer's fee from his own pocket, that by itself does not
satisfy the test of a locus standi to file public interest litigation. The public interest
writ jurisdiction was intended to vindicate public interest where fundamental and
other rights of the people who were poor, ignorant or in socially or economically
disadvantageous position and were unable to seek legal redress were required to be
espoused. However, the individuals who are effected and having grievance may
approach this Court in individual capacity seeking ventilation of their grievance.
11. In view of the aforesaid and in the light of the guidelines laid down in the
case of State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others(surpa),
this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, the same is,
hereby, dismissed at the admission stage itself.
(S.A. DHARMADHIKARI) (PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)
JUDGE JUDGE
pn
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA HARI
NAIR
Signing time: 4/5/2023
5:00:28 PM
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA HARI
NAIR
Signing time: 4/5/2023
5:00:28 PM
