Dismissed

Digvijay Singh v. Union of India and 3 Others

Allahabad HC8 Mar 2019WPIL/437/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a PIL wherein the petitioner, despite claiming to be a social worker, actually owned a transport business and failed to disclose this interest. The court declined to constitute a High Level Committee, citing potential abuse of PIL processes, and cautioned the petitioner against future frivolous litigation.

What did the court decide?

The plea to constitute a High Level Committee was dismissed. No order as to costs.

Digvijay Singh Vs Union of India and 3 Others — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 437 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Digvijay Singh Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mirza Ali Zulfaqar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajnish Kumar Rai

¶4

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶5

The petitioner in paragraph-4 of the petition has made a statement that he is a social worker and is participating in social activities since last several years and is still doing social work in the society for welfare of the public. Previously, he has preferred Public Interest Litigation No. 42121 of 2016 which was disposed of on 8.9.2016 leaving it open to the petitioner to make a representation before the Regional Transport Officer. It appears that thereafter he filed Contempt Application No. 5816 of 2017. The contempt petition was disposed of on 13.12.2017 with a direction upon the opposite party to ensure compliance of the order of this Court. In compliance thereof the Regional Transport Officer has furnished a list of vehicles which have been attached by him. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that a High Level Committee should be constituted to enquire into the matter regarding attachment of vehicles on contract basis and for taking appropriate action against the guilty officer. From a perusal of the list it appears that only 13 private vehicles have been attached by the authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that a perusal of the said list indicates that there are several irregularities.

¶6

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Mirza Ali Zulfaqar and learned Standing Counsel.

¶7

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the

¶8

petitioner has admitted that the petitioner is also in a transport business. However, the said fact has not been disclosed in the petition and in paragraph-4 of the petition it is only asserted that he is a social worker. It is evident that the petitioner has some personal interest in the matter as he is also in transport business. The Supreme Court in a series of decisions analyzing the scope of public interest litigation has held that in petty matters public interest litigation should not be entertained. The Court has also put a caution that a very heavy cost should be imposed in case of petty matters where the precious judicial time is wasted. Reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others, (2010) 3 SCC 402 , relevant part of the which reads as under:

¶9

" 143. Unfortunately, of late, it has been noticed that such an important jurisdiction which has been carefully carved out, created and nurtured with great care and caution by the courts, is being blatantly abused by filing some petitions with oblique motives. We think time has come when genuine and bona fide public interest litigation must be encouraged whereas frivolous public interest litigation should be discouraged.

¶10

*** *** ***

¶11

174. A degree of precision and purity in presentation is a sine qua non for a petition filed by a member of the Bar under the label of public interest litigation. It is expected from a member of the Bar to at least carry out the basic research whether the point raised by him is res integra or not. The lawyer who files such a petition cannot plead ignorance.

¶12

*** *** ***

¶13

178. We must abundantly make it clear that we are not discouraging the public interest litigation in any manner, what we are trying to curb is its misuse and abuse. According to us, this is a very important branch and, in a large number of PIL petitions, significant directions have been given by the courts for improving ecology and environment, and directions helped in preservation of forests, wildlife, marine life etc. etc. It is the bounden duty and obligation of the courts to encourage genuine bona fide PIL petitions and pass directions and orders in the public interest which are in consonance with the

¶14

Constitution and the laws.

¶15

In view of the above, we decline to interfere in this matter leaving it open to the petitioner to seek remedy elsewhere. We also caution the petitioner that in future if he abuses the process of law by filing litigation, heavy cost shall be imposed on him.

¶16

This order has been passed in the presence of learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2.

¶17

The petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶18

No order as to costs.

¶19

Order Date :- 8.3.2019 Digamber

Digvijay Singh v. Union of India and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Digvijay Singh v. Union of India and 3 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

Subhash Chandra Kesari Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Mukul Agrawal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sanjeev Kashyap Vs Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and Another

Ashok Kumar Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Pradeep Kumar Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Amit Kumar Vs Union of India and 4 Others