Disposed

Hemant Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development and Others

Allahabad HC5 Jun 2024WPIL/519/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL, the petitioner alleged illegal constructions in a public park preventing children from playing. The court directed the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police to provide adequate force to the Nagar Nigam/Corporation within six weeks for demolishing encroachments and taking appropriate legal action.

What did the court decide?

Direction to District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police to ensure adequate police force is available to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 within six weeks for taking action against illegal constructions a

Hemant Kumar Sharma vs State of U.P… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Chief Justice's Court

¶2

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 519 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Hemant Kumar Sharma Respondent :- State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development and Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Sarjoo Ram, Aklavya, Dinesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Isha Mittal (A.C.S.C.), Amit Kumar Dwivedi, Namit Sharma

¶5

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

¶6

This petition, in the nature of public interest, has been filed by the petitioner seeking to project that the park, in question, has been taken over by those who have encroached over by raising various constructions and the repeated representations, made to the Nagar Nigam/Municipal Corporation, have not been responded/no action has been taken.

¶7

A perusal of the writ petition along with the pictures produced, clearly show that large number of apparently illegal constructions have taken place all over the park in question, not leaving any space for the children to play around, which is wholly unjustified.

¶8

Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 submits that efforts were made for demolishing the constructions in question, however, adequate police force was not made available.

¶9

In the circumstances of the case, the District Magistrate, Lucknow/respondent No. 3 and Superintendent of Police are directed to ensure that adequate police force is made available

¶10

to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 for taking appropriate action with regard to illegal constructions/encroachments created over the park in question. On the requisite police force being made available, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 would take appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶11

Needful may be done by the respondents within a period of six weeks.

¶12

List on 05.09.2024.

¶13

Order Date :- 18.7.2024 Mukesh Pal/RK

¶14

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

¶15

Digitally signed by :- MUKESH PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Hemant Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemant Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Prashant Singh, Advocate vs Union of India the Secy. Ministry of Road Transport and National Highways , New Delhi and Others

Raj Kishore vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Nagar Vikas Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Babulal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Civil Sectt. Lko. and 6 Others

Praveen Kumar Dubey vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Geology and Mining Deptt. Lko. and 7 Others

Alok Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt of Urban Planning Lko and 7 Others

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deppt. of Ayush, Lucknow and Another vs Dr. Prem Kumar and Others