Disposed

Raj Kumar v. State of Up and 3 Others

Allahabad HC15 Jul 2024WPIL/504/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a PIL regarding an illegal Common Service Centre and Public Toilet on a primary school campus. The respondents constructed a new gate and a boundary wall to separate the school from the Panchayat Bhawan, preserving its independence. Consequently, the Court held no further directions were needed and disposed of the petition and vacated an interim order.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; interim order granted earlier vacated.

Raj Kumar vs State of Up and 3 Others — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:130390-DB

¶2

Chief Justice's Court

¶3

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 504 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nagendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sudhir Bharti, Akansha Sharma, S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶6

This petition in the nature of public interest litigation has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to remove/demolish the illegal construction (Common Service Centre and Public Toilet) from the campus of the Primary School, Dhanauji, Block-Tamkuhi, Tehsil-Kasia, District Kushinagar and take appropriate action against the Gram Pradhan.

¶7

When the petition came up before the Court and under the directions of the Court map was produced indicating the status of the school and the Panchayat Bhawan, Common Service Centre etc, a perusal thereof revealed that the Common Service Centre is within the boundary of the school and looking at its location the same would disturb the students inasmuch as those using the Common Service Centre would walk/drive across the entire ground of the school to reach the Service Centre and the school building/classes would be exposed to those coming for the said purpose.

¶8

Learned counsel for the respondents was granted time to explore the possibility if a gate on the southern side of the school could be

¶9

opened, which would be next to the Panchayat Bhawan and the proposed Common Service Centre.

¶10

Pursuant to the said order, further instructions were produced indicating that for providing an independent ingress for Panchayat Bhawan and Common Service Centre, a new gate on the southern side of the compound has been opened and a map in this regard was produced.

¶11

The Court observed that for the purpose of ensuring that the main gate, which is entrance to the school compound, is not used/continued to be used for access to the Panchayat Bhawan and Common Service Centre, it would be appropriate for the respondents to construct a wall bifurcating Panchayat Bhawan and Common Service Centre from that of the school so as to ensure that there is no access from the main road to the said buildings, so that the school can be kept totally independent from the said premises.

¶12

Pursuant to the said directions, an affidavit has been produced along with map and photographs inter-alia indicating that boundary wall, as observed, has been constructed and now the Panchayat Bhawan and Common Service Centre are totally independent of the school building.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner, attempted to make further submissions seeking to question the Panchayat Bhawan and Common Service Centre cannot be permitted at the present site. Further objections were raised pertaining to the respondents not disclosing the measurement of the boundary wall etc.

¶14

Having considered the submissions made as well as the material brought on record, once the Panchayat Bhawan is already working for long and the Common Service Centre, which is required to be

¶15

close to the Panchayat Bhawan, has already come up and now under the directions of the Court, a new gate as well as boundary wall has been constructed by the respondents making the school independent of the said construction, no further directions are required to be issued in the present public interest litigation and the same is therefore, disposed of .

¶16

Interim order granted by this Court on 13.3.2024 stands vacated. Order Date :- 12.8.2024 nd/piyush

¶17

(Vikas Budhwar, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)

¶18

Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raj Kumar v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar v. State of Up and 3 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ravindra Nath Yadav vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Ramesh Chandra Yadav vs Union of India and 2 Others

Jugnu Chaubey vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Union of India and Another vs Smt Sarita Singh

Swati Negi vs Vikas Verma and 2 Others

Sushil Raghav and Another vs State of U.P. and 9 Others