Dismissed¶15

Anurag Sharan v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Agriculture U.P. Lko. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC23 Nov 2024/1006/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), PIL No. 1006 of 2024, decided 23.11.2024 (Neutral Citation 2024:AHC-LKO:77545-DB): petition for shifting of Lucknow fish market yard dismissed on grounds of doubtful locus (petitioner resident of Hardoi), misdirected RTI communications (Fisheries Department instead of Agricultural Produce Market Board), and absence of genuine public interest. Relevant keywords: PIL dismissal, locus standi, market yard, machali mandi, Agricultural Produce Market Board, Right to Information Act.

What did the court decide?

On the question of locus, the material produced with the petition (Aadhar Card and RTI communications) indicates the petitioner's address is that of Hardoi only, notwithstanding the submission that he is a temporary resident of the area concerned. ¶9

Anurag Sharan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Agriculture U.P. Lko. and 6 Others — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should direct the respondents to remove/shift the market yard pertaining to fish (Naveen Mandi Sthal/Machali Mandi, Lucknow) to another place away from the colony/settlements. +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

The petitioner's communication to the Fisheries Department seeking information was apparently wholly misplaced, as the jurisdiction pertaining to the fish market yard is that of the Agricultural Produce Market Board, to which no communication was made.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

¶9

Key takeaways

The Court recorded that learned counsel appearing for the Market Board indicated compliance with the statutory requirements pertaining to declaration of the market yard, licences granted to traders therein and their renewal from time to time.obiter¶12
Although the grievance and the pictures annexed pertain to apparent lack of cleanliness at the site, no relief in that regard was claimed, which necessarily means the purpose of filing the petition essentially is not in public interest.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

PIL (No. 1006 of 2024, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; Arun Bhansali, CJ and Jaspreet Singh, J.; decided 23.11.2024) seeking a direction to remove/shift the fish market yard (Naveen Mandi Sthal/Machali Mandi, Lucknow) away from colonies/settlements — DISMISSED. The Court doubted the petitioner's locus: his Aadhar Card and RTI communications indicate his address as Behandar Kala, District Hardoi, while the grievance pertains to Lucknow. The Court observed that the petitioner's communications to the Fisheries Department were apparently wholly misplaced, jurisdiction over the fish market yard being that of the Agricultural Produce Market Board, to which no communication was made. Counsel for the Market Board indicated compliance with statutory requirements as to declaration of the market yard, trader licences and renewals. Although the annexed pictures showed apparent lack of cleanliness, no relief on cleanliness was claimed, leading the Court to conclude the petition was essentially not in public interest; finding no good reason to entertain it in its present form, the petition was dismissed.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:77545-DB

¶2

Chief Justice's Court

¶3

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1006 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Anurag Sharan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Agriculture U.P. Lko. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shri Manish Kumar Tripathi and Shri Aditya Vikram Singh, Advocates Counsel for Respondent :- Shri Anil Kumar Singh Visen, Standing Counsel, Shri Ratnesh Chandra, Miss Abha Srivastava and Naresh Chandra Mehrotra, Advocates

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Powers filed Shri Naresh Chandra Mehrotra, learned counsel on behalf of respondent No.6 and Miss Abha Srivastava, learned counsel on behalf of respondent No.4, both are taken on record.

¶7

The petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to remove/shift the market yard pertaining to fish to another place away from the colony/settlements.

¶8

A perusal of the petition indicates that the petitioner has relied on certain communications purportedly sent by the Mayor of the Lucknow Nagar Nigam to the Chief Minister and the applications made under the Right to Information Act to the Fisheries Department.

¶9

Looking to the nature of allegations made, a query was put to the petitioner pertaining to the locus as his address is indicated that of Behandar Kala, Behandar, Sandila, District Hardoi and the grievance pertains to Naveen Mandi Sthal/Machali Mandi, Lucknow, submissions were made that he is a temporary resident of the said area, however, the material produced along with the petition pertaining to the Aadhar Card as well as the communications made by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act indicate his address that of Hardoi only.

¶10

The writing of communication to the Fisheries Department seeking information also apparently was wholly misplaced in view of the fact that the jurisdiction pertaining to the market yard pertaining to fish is that of Agricultural Produce Market

¶11

Board to which apparently no communication was made.

¶12

Learned counsel appearing for the Market Board indicated having complied with all the requirements of the statue pertaining to declaration of market yard, the licenses granted to the traders therein and its renewal from time to time.

¶13

It is surprising that though the grievance made and the pictures annexed pertain to apparent lack of cleanliness at the site, no relief in this regard has been claimed by the petitioner, which necessarily means that the purpose of filing of the petition essentially is not in public interest.

¶14

In view thereof, we do not find any good reason to entertain the petition in its present form with the present relief.

¶15

Consequently, the same is dismissed .

¶16

(Jaspreet Singh, J.) (Arun Bhansali, CJ.)

¶17

Order Date :- 23.11.2024 Rakesh/-

¶18

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anurag Sharan v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Agriculture U.P. Lko. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anurag Sharan v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Agriculture U.P. Lko. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Desh Raj Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Irrigation and Water Resources Deptt. Govt. U.P. Lko. and Ors.

Ajeet Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Lko. and 3 Others

Anupam Agarwal Vs M/S Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited Thru. Its Director New Delhi and 3 Others

Manzar Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Housing and Urban Planning Lko. and 8 Others

Janmanas Kalyan Seva Trust Thru. Member Aniruddha Prasad Upadhayay vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Road Transport and Highways New Delhi and 2 Others

Janmanas Kalyan Seva Trust Thru. Member Aniruddha Prasad Upadhayay Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Road Transport and Highways New Delhi and 2 Others