Dismissed¶¶18

Ram Niwas Tripathi v. State of U.P. and 10 Others

Allahabad HC23 Sept 2025WPIL/1566/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PIL dismissed by Allahabad High Court (Bhansali, CJ & Shailendra, J.) on 24.09.2025; petitioner Ram Niwas Tripathi sought enquiry into construction violations in Loni Ward No. 33 (Ankur Vihar, Khushhal Vihar), Ghaziabad; complaints held generic and sweeping, amounting to a roving enquiry; Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973; Ghaziabad Development Authority; District Magistrate Ghaziabad; no precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

Though a list of flats was indicated, the complaints were absolutely generic and no indication was made as to which flat or building had violated which condition. ¶¶17

Ram Niwas Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the petition, purportedly in public interest, seeking a direction to respondents no. 2 and 3 (District Magistrate, Ghaziabad and Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority) to enquire into complaints about construction standards, granted permissions and alleged contraventions of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 in Loni area, Ward No. 33 (Ankur Vihar and Khushhal Vihar) ought to be entertained. +1 more

¶¶8

Court's answer

The Court found no good reason to entertain a petition of the present nature and dismissed it.

¶¶18

Ratio / Principle

Though a list of flats was indicated, the complaints were absolutely generic and no indication was made as to which flat or building had violated which condition.

¶¶17

Key takeaways

Making sweeping allegations without pinpointed specific allegations against specific construction essentially amounts to seeking a roving enquiry by the Development Authority, and complaints of that nature have rightly been discarded by the Development Authority.ratio¶¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Arun Bhansali, CJ and Kshitij Shailendra, J.) dismissed PIL No. 1566 of 2025 filed by Ram Niwas Tripathi, which sought a direction to the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad and the Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority to enquire into complaints regarding standards of construction, permissions granted and alleged contraventions of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 in the Loni area, Ward No. 33 (Ankur Vihar and Khushhal Vihar). The Court held that the complaints were absolutely generic — alleging wholly illegal constructions, extra storeys, lack of parking, failure to leave setbacks, excessive flats, poor construction material, drainage and fire-safety lapses, and protection of illegal builders by the Development Authority — without indicating which flat or building had violated which condition. Such sweeping, non-pinpointed allegations amounted to seeking a roving enquiry, which nature of complaints the Development Authority had rightly discarded. An earlier submission by the Standing Counsel that a demolition order dated 27.07.2022 had been passed against the petitioner (allegedly suppressed in the petition) was withdrawn on instructions, the notice having concerned a different person of similar name but different parentage.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1566 of 2025

¶3

Ram Niwas Tripathi

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and 10 others	.....R	espondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Bijai Prakash Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Manu Ghildyal, Sharma, Tejasvi Misra	Sant Ram

¶6

Chief Justice's Court

¶7

HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

¶8

This petition, purportedly in public interest, has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to respondents no. 2 and 3, i.e., District Magistrate, Ghaziabad and Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority to enquire into the complaint of the petitioner in the Loni area, Ward No. 33 (Ankur Vihar and Khushhal Vihar) about the standards of the construction and also how much permission for construction has been granted and how much they have constructed the building and whether the same are in contravention of the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 ('the Act').

¶9

On 14.08.2025, it was submitted by learned Standing Counsel that against the petitioner, already an order for demolition of his house has been passed on 27.07.2022, which fact has been suppressed in the petition, when learned Standing Counsel was directed to place the demolition notice on record.

¶10

Today, learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, submits that the said instruction was given by the respondent-Authority on account of similarity in the name of the petitioner and the person to whom notice was issued, however, parentage is different and that notice was not issued to the petitioner and that he withdraws his submission made on 14.08.2025.

¶11

It is, inter alia , claimed that petitioner has been making representations alleging the lack of construction as per the prescribed standard, however, the respondent-Development Authority has been giving standard response, i.e.,

¶12

WPIL No. 1566 of 2025

¶13

¶14

as soon as such violation comes to the notice, action under the relevant provisions of the Act has been taken and as the complainant has not indicated any specific flat, on indicating specific flats, action will be taken, which response of the Development Authority is ex facie illegal and incorrect as the violations are rampant and no effort is being made to identify such violations and take action. Submissions have also been made that petitioner has supplied the list of such flats, however, no action has been taken.

¶15

Instructions have been produced, inter alia , indicating that absolutely general allegations are being made qua the construction. The petitioner is habitual of making complaints and reference has been made regarding the action taken qua the flats indicated by the petitioner.

¶16

We have considered the material available on record and have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶17

A bare look at the complaints made clearly indicates that absolutely generic allegations have been made regarding the constructions being wholly illegal, raising of extra storeys, lack of parking facilities, failure to leave setback, construction of excessive flats, quality of construction material, lack of proper drainage, lack of fire safety equipments and illegal builders having protection of Developmetn Authority. Though list of flats have been indicated, no indication has been made as to which flat/building has violated which condition. Making sweeping allegations and not pinpointed specific allegations against specific construction, essentially, is seeking a roving enquiry by the Development Authority, which nature of complaints have rightly been discarded by the Development Authority.

¶18

We do not find any good reason to entertain the petition of present nature. The same is, therefore, dismissed.

¶19

(Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.)

¶20

September 24, 2025 P.Sri.

¶21

Digitally signed by :- PUNEET SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Niwas Tripathi v. State of U.P. and 10 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Niwas Tripathi v. State of U.P. and 10 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases