Dismissed

Shraddha Sharma and 18 Others v. State of U.P. and 38 Others

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2021WPIL/3807/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a PIL regarding rainwater harvesting and water conservation. The petitioners, who were law interns, failed to file an affidavit reporting on the representation submitted to the Allahabad Development Authority as earlier directed, leading to dismissal for non-prosecution.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed for non-prosecution due to the petitioners' failure to report on the earlier directed exercise.

Shraddha Sharma and 18 Others Vs State of U.P… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Additional Cause List Serial No.78

¶2

Chief Justice's Court

¶3

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 3807 of 2018

¶4

Petitioner :- Shraddha Sharma and others Respondent :- State of U.P. and others

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- Mr. A.K. Roy, Additional Chief Standing Counsel

¶6

Hon'ble Rajesh Bindal,Chief Justice Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.

¶7

No one has appeared for the petitioners.

¶8

On June 5, 2018, this Court passed the following order :-

¶9

"The petitioners are appearing in person.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondents no. 1 and 2. Shri Bharat Bhushan Paul, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 3. Shri Y.K.Srivastava, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 4.

¶11

The petitioners, who are law interns want to preserve water and to avoid its wastage to meet the scarcity of water by ensuring that Rain Water Harvesting Plants are properly installed in all the private and government buildings.

¶12

The Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad is the appropriate authority to monitor the constructions of the buildings in the area and to ensure that the Rain Water Harvesting Plants are installed in accordance with its bye-laws or the Government Orders issued from time to time.

¶13

The petitioners, before approaching this Court, ought to have made an effort to impress upon the Vice Chairman and the Chairman of the Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad in this regard.

¶14

Since this exercise has not been done, we permit the petitioners to represent to the Vice Chairman of the A.D.A. in this regard. In case their representation is not considered, they may raise their grievance before the Chairman of the A.D.A. i.e. the Commissioner of the Division.

¶15

List this petition after two months.

¶16

In the meantime the petitioners would undertake the aforesaid exercise and apprise the Court of the results on the next date"

¶17

The petitioners claim themselves to be law students.

¶18

They have not taken care to file any affidavit to apprise this Court about the result of the representation made to the Vice Chairman, Prayagraj Development Authority.

¶19

Apparently, no representation has been made, which shows that they are not interested to pursue the present petition.

¶20

The petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶21

Date :- 4.12.2021 Rahul Dwivedi/Amit Mishra

¶22

(Piyush Agrawal, J.) (Rajesh Bindal, C.J.)

Shraddha Sharma and 18 Others v. State of U.P. and 38 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shraddha Sharma and 18 Others v. State of U.P. and 38 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Prathana Jaiswal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Lal Bihari Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Mangala Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Brij Gopal Yadav and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bhagwan Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Arun Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others