Dismissed¶14

Mangla Prashad Verma v. State of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Dep.of Revenue and Ors.

Allahabad HC12 May 2022/237/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PIL dismissed; affidavit in support of public interest litigation to be filed by petitioner himself, not by unauthorized deponent or pairvi agent; pleadings in PIL with absolute sense of responsibility; averments true to deponent's personal knowledge; oral claim of petitioner being Advocate unsupported by writ petition averments; encroachment removal gata no.553 Mohalla Rabipur Bahauddinpur Akbarpur Ambedkar Nagar; Nagar Palika Parishad; maintainability of PIL; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; order dated 12.05.2022.

What did the court decide?

Pleadings in public interest litigation should be made with absolute sense of responsibility. ¶10

Mangla Prashad Verma Vs State of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Dep.of Revenue and Ors. — Allahabad HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the public interest litigation should be entertained where the affidavit in support is sworn not by the petitioner but by a deponent claiming to be the petitioner's Junior/Assistant doing pairvi, without disclosed authorization from the petitioner. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

The oral statement of learned counsel that the petitioner is an Advocate finds no corresponding averment in the writ petition, which states only that the petitioner is a resident of the locality with no personal or private interest in the matter.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

Pleadings in public interest litigation should be made with absolute sense of responsibility.

¶10

Key takeaways

Unless the petitioner coming to the Court with a public cause is incapacitated for any plausible reason, the affidavit in support of such public interest litigation ought to be filed by the petitioner himself and not by anyone else.ratio¶11
An affidavit stating that the averments in the writ petition are true to the personal knowledge of the deponent and not of the petitioner, filed by an unauthorized deponent, reflects the irresponsible manner in which the PIL jurisdiction of the Court has been sought to be invoked.ratio¶13
For the aforesaid reasons the Court is not inclined to entertain the petition, which is dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Subhash Vidyarthi, JJ.) dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL No. 237 of 2022) praying for a direction to Nagar Palika Parishad, Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar to remove alleged illegal encroachment said to have been made by opposite party no.6 over gata no.553, Mohalla Rabipur, Bahauddinpur. The affidavit in support was sworn not by the petitioner but by one Prabhat Kumar Mishra claiming to be the petitioner's Junior/Assistant doing pairvi, without disclosing any authorization, and the averments were stated to be true to the personal knowledge of the deponent rather than of the petitioner. The oral assertion that the petitioner was an Advocate found no averment in the writ petition. Holding that pleadings in PIL must be made with absolute sense of responsibility and that, unless the petitioner is incapacitated, the supporting affidavit ought to be filed by the petitioner himself, the Court found the affidavit to reflect an irresponsible invocation of PIL jurisdiction and declined to entertain the petition.

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 237 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Mangla Prashad Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Dep.Of Revenue And Ors.

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Vikas Verma,Nishi Chaudhary Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Aatreya Tripathi

¶5

Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Aatreya Tripathi, learned counsel representing the Nagar Palika Parishad, Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar.

¶7

This petition purportedly filed in public interest prays that Nagar Palika Parishad, Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar be directed to remove alleged illegal encroachment said to have been made by opposite party no.6 over gata no.553, situate in Mohalla Rabipur, Bahauddinpur, Pargana and Tehsil Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar.

¶8

This petition has been filed by one Mangla Prashad Verma, who is said to be a legal practitioner. The affidavit filed in support of this public interest petition has been filed by one Prabhat Kumar Mishra alleging himself to be the Junior/Assistant of the petitioner. The deponent of the affidavit also states that he is doing pairvi of the case on behalf of the petitioner. The said affidavit, however, nowhere discloses that the deponent has been authorized by the petitioner for plausible reason to file affidavit or to do pairvi of the case.

¶9

Though it has been stated orally by learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner is an Advocate, however, in the writ petition no such averment has been made. In the writ petition it has only been stated that the petitioner is a resident of Mohalla Rabipur, Bahauddinpur, Pargana and Tehsil Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar and that he has no personal or private interest in the matter.

¶10

It is needless to say that pleadings in public interest litigation should be made with absolute sense of responsibility. Unless the petitioner comes to a Court with a public cause is incapacitated for any plausible reason, the affidavit in support of such public interest litigation, in our considered opinion, ought to be filed

¶11

by the petitioner himself and not by anyone else.

¶12

If we peruse the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it has been stated that averments made in the writ petition are true to the personal knowledge of the deponent and not to the personal knowledge of the petitioner.

¶13

Such an affidavit reflects the irresponsible manner in which the PIL jurisdiction of this Court has been sought to be invoked.

¶14

For the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to entertain this petition, which is hereby dismissed.

¶15

Order Date :- 12.5.2022 Renu/-

¶16

Digitally signed by RENU AGARWAL Date: 2022.05.13 17:27:47 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mangla Prashad Verma v. State of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Dep.of Revenue and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangla Prashad Verma v. State of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Dep.of Revenue and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Darshan Kaur Vs State of U.P.Throu.Prin.Secy.Revenue Deptt.Lko.and Ors.

Padri Kripal Kisan Seva Sahkari Samiti Thru. Its Chairman Vs Union of India Min. of Agriculture G.O.I. Thru. Its Secy.

Smt. Panna Devi Vs State of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Deptt.of Panchayati Raj Lko.andORS

Santosh Kumar Chaubey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Awas Evam Sahari-Niyojan Vibhag, Govt. Up Lko. and 3 Others

M/S U.P. Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. Thru. Mahesh Chandra Pal Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Ministry of Finance and 3 Others

Mewa Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy.Housing Urban and Planning Deptt.and 5 Others