The Court dismissed a PIL challenging an electricity tower installation order. Citing a companion PIL, the High Court held the matter lacked general public significance and dismissed the petition to prevent misuse of PIL jurisdiction.
Direction to respondents not to install electricity tower on public land dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 21 Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 358 of 2019
Petitioner :- Atiqur Rehman Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Afshan Shafaut Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mahboob Ahmad,Mohammad Mustafa
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
In this public interest litigation the petitioner is seeking a mandamus for a direction upon the respondents not to install any electricity poll/ electricity tower over the public land.
In the companion public interest litigation, being Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 367 of 2019, Atiqur Rehman v. State of U.P. and others, filed by the same person through same counsel, the same issue has been raised. In the said case, today the Court has passed the following order:
" In this public interest litigation the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26th November, 2018 passed by the District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar, the second respondent. By the impugned order the District Magistrate has passed a detailed and reasoned order, wherein it has been recorded that the transformer in question does not cause any inconvenience to the residents of the area.
Sri Mahboob Ahmad, learned counsel for the respondents, has raised a preliminary objection that the order passed by the District Magistrate is revisable before the Regulatory Commission under Rule 3(3) of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006.
We have perused the order of the District Magistrate. We find that the issue raised in this petition does not need consideration in the public interest litigation jurisdiction as it does not raise any substantial point for the importance of general public.
It is trite that the public interest litigation for such petty matters should not be encouraged by the High Court. Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India and another, (2018) 6 SCC 72, has considered the scope
and jurisdiction under Public Interest Litigation and reiterated the earlier law laid down by the Supreme Court in respect of entertaining the public interest litigation by the High Court and the Supreme Court. The Court observed thus:
"98. The misuse of public interest litigation is a serious matter of concern for the judicial process. Both this court and the High Courts are flooded with litigation and are burdened by arrears. Frivolous or motivated petitions, ostensibly invoking the public interest detract from the time and attention which courts must devote to genuine causes. This court has a long list of pending cases where the personal liberty of citizens is involved. Those who await trial or the resolution of appeals against orders of conviction have a legitimate expectation of early justice. It is a travesty of justice for the resources of the legal system to be consumed by an avalanche of misdirected petitions purportedly filed in the public interest which, upon due scrutiny, are found to promote a personal, business or political agenda. This has spawned an industry of vested interests in litigation. There is a grave danger that if this state of affairs is allowed to continue, it would seriously denude the efficacy of the judicial system by detracting from the ability of the court to devote its time and resources to cases which legitimately require attention. Worse still, such petitions pose a grave danger to the credibility of the judicial process. This has the propensity of endangering the credibility of other institutions and undermining public faith in democracy and the rule of law. This will happen when the agency of the court is utilised to settle extra-judicial scores. Business rivalries have to be resolved in a competitive market for goods and services. Political rivalries have to be resolved in the great hall of democracy when the electorate votes its representatives in and out of office. Courts resolve disputes about legal rights and entitlements. Courts protect the rule of law. There is a danger that the judicial process will be reduced to a charade, if disputes beyond the ken of legal parameters occupy the judicial space."
In view of the above, we dismiss the public interest litigation leaving it open to the petitioner to take recourse to such remedy, which is available in law."
In view of the above and for the reasons recorded in the aforesaid public interest litigation, this public interest litigation is also dismissed in the same terms.
Order Date :- 15.3.2019 SKT/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to entertain a public interest litigation seeking direction not to install electricity towers on public land as a substantial infringement of public interest.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India and anotherReferred¶9
Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India and another, (2018) 6 SCC 72 · Who else cites this
Atiqur Rehman
State Of U.P.
Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel
Pankaj Bhatia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
