Yogendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Panchayat Raj, Lko. and 3 Others

Court No. - 2

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 619 of 2022

Petitioner :- Yogendra Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Panchayat Raj, Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel representing respondent no.3.

¶6

The petitioner, who is said to be the resident of village Jagatpur, Pargana Daundiyakhera, Tehsil Bighapur, Distruct Unnao, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ostensibly in public interest with the prayer to issue direction to the District Magistrate, Unnao to consider and decide certain representations dated 18.03.2021, 04.06.2021 and 07.07.2021 said to have been made by him pointing out alleged irregularities said to have been committed by respondent no.4 who is former Village Pradhan of the village concerned.

¶7

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others , reported in 2010 (3) SCC 402 has issued certain directions, according to which efforts of the Court should be not only to entertain genuine PILs but also to ensure protection of basic human rights and other legal rights of the persons belonging to disadvantageous class. Hon'ble Supreme Court has, however, in the said case itself, put a word of caution that it is a high time to ensure that the Courts are not flooded with personal interest litigations filed for mischievous and fictitious causes. It thus becomes duty of the Court to examine the credentials of the person who is approaching the Court by filing public interest litigation.

¶8

Pursuant to the directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Singh Chaufal and others (supra), Rules of the Court have been amended and Rule 1 (3-A) of Chapter XXII has been added which requires the person approaching the Court in public interest litigation to disclose his credentials. The purpose of insertion of aforesaid Rule is to ensure that only genuine public interest litigations are filed.

¶9

When we examine the averments made in this petition on the touchstone of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Singh Chaufal and others (supra) as also the aforementioned Rules inserted in the Rules of the Court on the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, what we find is that except for stating that the petitioner does not have any personal or private interest, nothing has been disclosed or stated by the petitioner about his credentials. We also find that except for making a representation, which is though supported by an affidavit, however the same does not bear any evidence, nothing has been brought on record to support the submissions made herein.

¶10

Allegations are levelled in the writ petition against respondent no.4 whose term as Village Pradhan has come to an end. When we confronted learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner himself has undertaken any work in the interest of common residents of the village, it has been stated that the petitioner has never been elected as Gram Pradhan. This statement itself bears testimony about motive and intent of the petitioner to invoke PIL jurisdiction.

¶11

It thus appears that this petition has not been filed in any public interest; rather to serve personal interest of certain persons.

¶12

Thus, we are not inclined to entertain this petition, which is hereby dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 14.9.2022 Renu/-

¶14

Digitally signed by RENU AGARWAL Date: 2022.09.14 17:24:09 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Yogendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Panchayat Raj, Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Panchayat Raj, Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Prasad Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home and 6 Others

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and Others Vs Rakesh Kumar Srivastava

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others Vs Gulab Chandra Rastogi

Shikha Rai Alias Shikha Singh Vs Rahul Kumar Rai

Poonam Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Dept. of Medical Health and Family Welfare and 4 Others

Rakesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rev. Deptt. Up Lko. and 4 Others