Dismissed

Surendra Prasad Dwivedi v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC2 Jul 2024WPIL/896/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a PIL seeking directions to restrain a private party from interfering with the beautification of a pond under the Amrit Sarovar Scheme. The Court held that since the State respondents raised no objection and the dispute was with a private party, the PIL was not maintainable. The petitioner was left free to pursue other legal remedies.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed; petitioner left free to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

Surendra Prasad Dwivedi vs State of U.P. and 5… — Municipal and Town Planning | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:136405-DB

¶2

Chief Justice's Court

¶3

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 896 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Surendra Prasad Dwivedi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anjani Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- Seema Agarwal, S.C.

¶5

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

¶6

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to restrain private respondent no.6 not to interfere in the construction and beautification of Pokhar, situated on Arazi No.948Ka/0.490 hectare, Village Balua, Tehsil Kaimpiyarganj, District Gorakhpur.

¶7

Submissions have been made that the beautification of the pond has been sanctioned under the Amrit Sarovar Scheme and though the respondents no.1 to 5 have no objection to the beautification and even the person holding lease for the fisheries qua the said pond also has no objection, the respondent no.6 is interfering and not permitting the beautification and, therefore, action be taken against him.

¶8

Apparently, it is not the case of the petitioner that the State respondents were not permitting the beautification of the pond under the Amrit Sarovar Scheme. The allegations are against private respondent no.6. Qua the said private respondent no.6, filing of the present PIL cannot be countenanced.

¶9

The petitioner and/or the Gram Sabha is required to take appropriate action in accordance with law either by filing a suit and/or by initiating appropriate proceedings before the competent

¶10

court/authority.

¶11

In that view of the matter, no case is made out in the present public interest petition seeking direction against the respondents, the same is, therefore, dismissed, leaving it open for the petitioner/the concerned to take action.

¶12

Order Date :- 27.8.2024 SL/RK

¶13

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

¶14

Digitally signed by :- SHYAM LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Surendra Prasad Dwivedi v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Prasad Dwivedi v. State of U.P. and 5 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

Shrinivas Rao Sada Sivni vs Smt Charumati

Shrinivas Rao Sada Sivni vs Smt Charumati

Shrinivas Rao Sada Sivni vs Smt Charumati

Aditya Narayan Rai Minor vs Union of India

Union of India and 2 Others vs Jagidish Zumaklal Warkade

Rajnish Tripathi vs Union of India and 3 Others