Dismissed

Surendra Pal Singh v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministy of Railway New Delhi and Others

Allahabad HC14 Feb 2023/102/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application filed as Public Interest Litigation challenging the construction of a railway 'Puliya'. The court held that the petitioner had pleaded personal loss and injury, negating the public interest nature of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as it was not in public interest due to personal involvement of the petitioner.

Surendra Pal Singh Vs Union of India Thru. Secy… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 102 of 2023 Petitioner :- Surendra Pal Singh Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministy Of Railway New Delhi And Others

¶3

Counsel for Petitioner :- S.K. Singhaniya Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Mohd. Aslam, Advocate holding brief of Shri S.K. Singhaniya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri S.B. Pandey, learned Deputy Solicitor General assisted by Shri Varun Pandey, learned counsel for Union of India and Shri Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents.

¶6

The instant writ petition has purportedly been filed in the Public Interest seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the opposite parties not to construct the Puliya situated in Pillar no.238/01 to Sharda Bridge no.97, Tehsil-Paliya Kala, District- Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶7

In paragraph no.10 of the writ petition, the petitioner has pleaded that " if this Hon'ble court not passed any appropriate order, the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury, which not compensated at all. "

¶8

From the aforesaid pleadings made in the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner's personal interests are involved in the matter and the petition has not been filed in public interest.

¶9

On the basis of written instructions, the learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents has submitted that 'Puliya' in question is being constructed by the Railways.

¶10

Shri S.B. Pandey, learned Deputy Solicitor General representing Union of India has stated that the construction of 'Puliya' is being done keeping in view the larger public interest and it would not be in the public interest to stop the construction of the 'Puliya'.

¶11

Keeping in view the aforesaid discussions, particularly the plea taken by the petitioner that he will suffer some personal loss and injury, indicating that his personal interest is involved in the matter, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition claiming to have been filed in public interest.

¶12

In view of the aforesaid discussions, the instant writ petition filed as Public Interest Litigation is, hereby, dismissed.

¶13

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

¶14

Order Date :- 14.2.2023 Arnima

¶15

Digitally signed by :- ARNIMA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Surendra Pal Singh v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministy of Railway New Delhi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Pal Singh v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministy of Railway New Delhi and 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

Rafi Parvez Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Govt. of U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Thru. M.D.and Anr. Vs U.P. State Public Sevice Tribunal Thru. Registrar and Ors.

Naresh Dixit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Others

Ramhet Vs Sunita Devi and Another

Sayyed Mohd. Faizan Vs Hina Parveen

Sonam Devi and Another Vs Na