Dismissed

Ram Kumar Tripathi and 7 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC19 Nov 2025WPIL/1185/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a PIL seeking removal of a statue from a park, noting the petitioners failed to provide park dimensions, did not maintain the park, and filed the petition immediately after sending a representation. The court distinguished a prior precedent where substantial encroachment was established.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ram Kumar Tripathi and 7 Others vs State of… — Municipal and Town Planning | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1185 of 2025

¶3

Ram Kumar Tripathi and 7 others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. through Prin. Secy. and 4 others	Home Deptt. Lko. .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) :	Dheerendra Kumar Singh, Vijay Kumar Asthana, Anupam Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) :	Parul Bajpai (A.C.S.C.), Namit Sharma, Ratnesh Chandra, Gaurav Tripathi, Sankalp Dewari

¶6

Chief Justice's Court

¶7

HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶8

Vakalatnama filed by Sri Sankalp Dewari, Advocate for respondent no. 4, Municipal Corporation and by Mr. Gaurav Tripathi, Advocate, for respondent no. 5, Lucknow Development Authority, respectively are taken on record.

¶9

This petition, purportedly in public interest, has been filed by the petitioners seeking a direction to the Municipal Corporation and Lucknow Development Authority to remove all illegal constructions and restore the park to its original condition.

¶10

Submissions have been made that some unnamed persons, have set up a statue in the park without seeking permission and were seeking to construct a canopy over it, which was interjected by the Corporation in the year 2018, whereafter, a Society, in the name of Vikas Nagar Sector-1 Vikas Samiti, made a representation in this regard in the year, 2018 which were followed by representations in the year, 2019, 2022 by residents; and, recently on 07.11.2025. Last such representation was sent by registered post on 08.11.2025 in relation to the status of the park, however, the respondents have not taken any action.

¶11

Submissions have been made that this Court in Sanjay Kumar Dubey and others vs. State of U.P. and others : Misc Bench No.1720 of 2015 , decided on 11.03.2015, had required the respondents therein to take a decision pertaining to the encroachment made on the park and, therefore,

¶12

WPIL No. 1185 of 2025

¶13

¶14

similar order is required to be passed in the present petition.

¶15

We have considered the submissions made and have gone through the petition. Admittedly the structure/statue is at the park since 2018. The petition is totally silent in relation to the total dimensions of the park and the area whereon the statue is standing. The pictures, which have been produced, reflect only the statue and the overall dimensions of the park are not available. The pictures produced also indicate that insofar as the petitioners, who are seeking to espouse the cause purportedly qua maintaining the park, have not taken care of the park in question as the entire park, as per the pictures, is full of dirt and for the reasons best known to them, after making representations in the year 2018, 2019, 2022, again a fresh attempt now is being made. The last representation has been made on 08.11.2025 and the petition has been presented on 14.11.2025, which also necessarily indicates that only with a view to file the present petition, the formality of sending the representation on 08.11.2025 has been undertaken.

¶16

So far as the judgment in Sanjay Kumar Dubey (supra) is concerned, in the said case, 75% area of the park was alleged to be encroached upon and therein also Division Bench directed a decision in this regard to be taken by the authorities. However, in the case in hand, as noticed above, the petitioners have failed to indicate necessary requisite particulars in the petition qua the park and/or attempt being made by the petitioners to support the upkeep of the park.

¶17

In view thereof, we do not find any reason to entertain the present petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed.

¶18

November 19, 2025

¶19

Harshita/P.Sri.

¶20

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

¶21

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

Ram Kumar Tripathi and 7 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ram Kumar Tripathi and 7 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Deep Charan Shukla and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Rural Development Deptt. Lko. and 18 Others

General Manager,Jal Kal Vibhag Hq Aishbagh Lko and Another vs Guru Prasad @ Guru Prasad Singh and 2 Others

Krishna Gopal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education U.P. Govt. Lko. and Others

Ram Kumar Tripathi and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Zulfekar Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue and 15 Others

General Manager,Jal Kal Vibhag Hq Aishbagh Lko and Another vs Guru Prasad @ Guru Prasad Singh and 2 Others