Dismissed

Manoj Kumar v. State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Environment, Forest and Cc and 2 Others

Allahabad HC23 May 2022/267/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a public interest litigation petition under Article 226 filed by Manoj Kumar challenging an Office Memorandum by the Union of India. The court rejected the petition for failure to fulfill credential requirements mandated by Allahabad High Court Rules.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed for non-fulfillment of credential requirements under Court Rules.

Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 267 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Environment, Forest And Cc And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajnish Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard Shri Rajnish Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State Counsel.

¶6

These proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been instituted purportedly in public interest. The Office Memorandum dated 07 July, 2021 which has been challenged in these proceedings has been issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Impact Assessment Division.

¶7

Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change through its Secretary has been impleaded as respondent no.3 in this petition, however, notice of this petition for respondent no.3 has not been served in the office of learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, who is authorized to receive notice on behalf of the Union of India.

¶8

We also notice that nothing has been averred in the entire writ petition as to the credentials of the petitioner which is essential in view of the provisions contained in Chapter XXII Rule 1(3A) of the Allahabad High Court Rules which was inserted keeping in view the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttarakhand v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others, reported in 2010 AIR SCW 1029 . Sub Rule 3-A of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Rules of the Court is quoted hereunder:

¶9

1(3-A) In addition to satisfying the requirements of the other rules in this chapter, the petitioner seeking to file a Public Interest Litigation, should precisely and specifically sate, in the affidavit to be sworn by him giving his credentials, the public cause he is seeking to espouse; that he has no personal or private interest in the matter: that there is no authoritative pronouncement by the Supreme Court or High Court on the question raised; and that the result of the

¶10

litigation will not lead to any undue gain to himself or anyone associated with him, or any undue loss to any person, body of persons or the State

¶11

Explanatory Note.-The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment in C.A. Nos.1134-1135/02, State of Uttarakhand v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others, has observed that the process of Court is frequently abused in the name of Public Interest Litigation and has directed all the High Courts to frame rules to prevent the same. The aforesaid amendment is intended to achieve the said objective.

¶12

As per the aforequoted provisions contained in sub rule 3-A of rule 1, any person who seeks to file a Public Interest Litigation has to precisely and specifically state, in the affidavit to be sworn in by him giving his credentials and the public cause he is seeking to espouse.

¶13

So far as the credentials of the petitioner are concerned, as observed above, nothing has been indicated in this regard in this writ petition except that the petitioner is a citizen of India and he has a fundamental duty to protect and improve the nature of environment in terms of the provisions contained in Article 51A (g) of the Constitution of India.

¶14

It has though been ritualistically stated by the petitioner that he does not have any private or private interest in the matter and there is no authoritative pronouncement by the Hon'ble Supreme Court or the High Court on the issue raised in the writ petition and further that the present litigation will not lead to any undue gain to him and there is no undue loss to any person, body or State however, regarding his credentials no disclosure by the petitioner has been made.

¶15

Accordingly, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition on account of non-fulfillment of the requirement of the provisions contained in Chapter XXII Rule 1(3-A) of the Rules of the Court. The writ petition is, thus, dismissed.

¶16

Order Date :- 23.5.2022 akhilesh/

¶17

Digitally signed by AKHILESHWAR KUMAR Date: 2022.05.25 10:30:46 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Manoj Kumar v. State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Environment, Forest and Cc and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar v. State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Environment, Forest and Cc and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Fisheries Deptt. , Civil Secrt. U.P. Lko. and Others

Mukesh Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy.Panchayati Raj and 3 Others

Ram Pratap Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. U.P. Urban Development Dept. Civil Sect. Lko and 2 Others

Sanjay Banerjee Vs State of U.P Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Housing and Urban Planning and 3 Others

Nirmala and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development U.P. Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Shashikant Mishra and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Chini Udyog Lko. and Others