Dismissed

Samay Singh v. State of U.P. and 12 Others

Allahabad HC24 May 2019WPIL/1117/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court observed that encroachment issues have an efficacious remedy under Section 133 Cr.P.C. and no pleading showed alternative recourse was taken. Citing Supreme Court precedents on curbing frivolous litigation, the Court dismissed the PIL.

What did the court decide?

The public interest litigation is disposed of; the petitioner is left to approach competent authorities under Section 133 Cr.P.C.

Samay Singh Vs State of U.P. and 12 Others — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1117 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Samay Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 12 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sushil Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajesh Kumar Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶5

Vakalatnama has been filed by Shri S.C. Dwivedi on behalf of respondent no.4, which is taken on record.

¶6

This proceeding under the public interest litigation has been instituted for removal of encroachment from the Link Road to Dehradun Highway.

¶7

It is alleged that a large number of encroachment has been made near the road, which is causing hinderance to free flow of the traffic and public safety. It is stated that for removal of encroachment, the representations have been made, but no action has been taken by the authorities concerned.

¶8

We are of the view that in case of such encroachment, the petitioner has efficacious remedy under Section 133 Cr.P.C.. We do not find any pleading in the writ petition that petitioner has taken recourse to the remedy under the law.

¶9

This Court has huge pendency of the cases entertaining the writ petition for such small matters will further aggrivate the problem of the pendency.

¶10

Moreover, recently, the Supreme Court in the case of Phool Chandra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 112 has held as under:

¶11

"12. All these are aberrations in the functioning of the Apex Court of any country. Of late, there has been an increase in the trend of litigants rushing to the courts, including this Court, for all kinds of trivial and silly matters

¶12

which results in wastage of public money and time. A closer scrutiny of all such matters would disclose that there was not even a remote justification for filing the case. It is a pity that the time of the court which is becoming acutely precious because of the piling arrears has to be wasted on hearing such matters. There is an urgent need to put a check on such frivolous litigation. Perhaps many such cases can be avoided if the learned counsel who are officers of the court and who are expected to assist the court tender proper advice to their clients. The Bar has to realise that the great burden upon the Bench of dispensing justice imposes a simultaneous duty upon them to share this burden and it is their duty to see that the burden should not needlessly be made unbearable. The Judges of this Nation are struggling bravely against the odds to tackle the problem of dispensing quick justice. But, without the cooperation of the gentlemen of the Bar, nothing can be done.

¶13

13. It is high time that the courts should come down heavily upon such frivolous litigation and unless we ensure that the wrongdoers are denied profit or undue benefit from the frivolous litigation, it would be difficult to control frivolous and uncalled for litigation. In order to curb such kind of litigation, the courts have to ensure that there is no incentive or motive which can be ensured by imposing exemplary costs upon the parties as well as on the learned counsel who act in an irresponsible manner.{Vide Varinderpal Singh v. M.R. Sharma, 1986 Supp SCC 719, Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi, (2011) 8 SCC 249 : (2011) 4 SCC (Civ) 1, and Gurgaon Gramin Bank v. Khazani, (2012) 8 SCC 781 : AIR 2012 SC 2881.}"

¶14

In view of the above, we dispose of the public interest litigation. Leaving it open to the petitioner to take recourse to such remedy, which is available to him under law.

¶15

Order Date :- 24.5.2019 A.N. Mishra

Samay Singh v. State of U.P. and 12 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samay Singh v. State of U.P. and 12 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satyapal Singh Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and 3 Others

Shailendra Kumar Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Ram Lakhan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shrikant and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Anil Kumar Pal Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Balram Yadav Vs State of U P and 5 Others