Moti Lal Yadav vs Union of India, Thru. Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs Central Secy. New Delhi and 23 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1198 of 2025

Moti Lal Yadav

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Union Of India, Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Home Affairs Central Secy. New Delhi And 23 Others

¶7

Affairs Central Secy. New Delhi And 23 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : In Person Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Ambrish Rai, C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 1

¶9

HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J.

¶10

Vakalatnam filed by Shri Ambrish Rai, Advocate on behalf of opposite party no.4 is taken on record.

¶11

Heard Shri Moti Lal Yadav, applicant in person, Shri Surya Bhan Pandey, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Varun Pandey, learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing for opposite party no.1 and Shri Ambrish Rai, learned counsel for the opposite party no.4.

¶12

Prima facie, we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned vide relief no.1 as the order dated 12.09.2023 passed by the Central Consumer Protection Authority does not decide any issue but only says that any action as claimed by the petitioner in his representation can be taken only after due and proper procedure as prescribed in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 being followed which includes inquiry/investigation as initiated therein.

¶13

Secondly as regards, the order dated 15.09.2023 which is in respect of grant of Padma awards to the private opposite parties it only says that so far as misleading and surrogate advertisements are concerned and their endorsement, these are matters governed by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which is being dealt by the Department of Consumer Affairs, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Government of India and it is that department which is competent to take action in this

¶14

WPIL No. 1198 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

regard. It also refers to some guidelines for prevention of endorsements for misleading advertisements, 2022 in this regard, Therefore, in essence, the order says that as of now, the matter is pending with the Department of Consumer Affairs, Government of India, meaning thereby, there is no such decision by the said authority in the context of the representation submitted by the petitioner.

¶17

The order dated 02.07.2024 passed by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India deals with constitution of a committee in compliance of the judgment dated 15.12.1995 of the Supreme Court of India in Transfer Cases (Civil) No.9 of 1994 and No.1 of 1995. The committee comprises of several high dignitaries including the Vice President of India, Solicitor General of India, etc. The said order refers to the recommendations of the committee.

¶18

In this regard, the contention of Shri Moti Lal Yadav was that as per the Supreme Court's decision, the committee should have comprised of the Lok Sabha Speaker, The Chief Justice of India or his nominee and the leader of the opposition in the Lok Sabha. However, we find that it was only a suggestion in the concurring judgment rendered by Justice Kuldeep Singh as he then was and not a judicial mandate as such. However, one thing is striking i.e. as per the order dated 12.09.2023 of the Central Consumer Protection Authority, inquiry/investigation, as the case may be on the representation of the petitioner, was pending at that time. We are now in 2025. We would like to know, as to whether, inquiry/investigation on the representation of the petitioner is still pending or not. If not, the result thereof be brought on record. If, it is still pending then why has it remained pending for so long? After all, such inquiry/investigation cannot remain pending indefinitely if, it is so.

¶19

In view of the above, we entertain this petition only to the extent aforesaid as we are of the opinion that relief nos.1,2 & 3 are not required to be considered in view of what has been stated in the orders which are impugned therein.

¶20

Let the notice be issued to the opposite party no.3.

¶21

Opposite party no.3 shall file response within four weeks, thereafter,

¶22

WPIL No. 1198 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

one week's time is granted to petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit.

¶25

List thereafter.

¶26

Let the name of Shri Ambrish Rai, Advocate be shown as counsel for opposite party in the cause list whenever the case is listed next.

¶27

(Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)

¶28

November 25, 2025

¶29

V. Sinha

¶30

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

Moti Lal Yadav v. Union of India, Thru. Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs Central Secy. New Delhi and 23 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moti Lal Yadav v. Union of India, Thru. Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs Central Secy. New Delhi and 23 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Siddharth Shukla vs Lucknow Development Authority , Lko. Thru. Vice Chairman and Others

Pharmacy Council of India Thru. Registrar-Cum-Secretary vs Asbd College of Pharmacy Thru. Its Secretary , Vivek Kumar Singh and 2 Others

Abhishek Mishra vs State of U.P.Thru.Addl.Chief Secy.Economic Statistical Division,State Planning Institute and 2 Ors.

Fazlur Rahman vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and Ors.

Union of India, Thru. Prin. Chief Materials Manager Modern Coach Factory Raebareli vs M/S Kineco Ltd. 41, Pilerne Industrial Estate, Bardez Goa

Aryavart Bank Head Office Vijay Khand Gomti Nagar Lko. Thru. Chairman vs O.P Trivedi (Om Prakash Trivedi) and Others