Dismissed¶11

Rajkumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Public Interest Litigation – Maintainability

Allahabad HC24 Sept 2025WPIL/3032/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Arun Bhansali, CJ and Kshitij Shailendra, J.), PIL No. 3032 of 2025, Rajkumar Yadav v. State of U.P., decided September 25, 2025: PIL seeking inquiry into alleged embezzlement of government money in construction of a 500 mtrs. link road dismissed as absolutely cursory; no material beyond an unreadable contract bond copy and a four-line representation; PILs based on cursory material seeking roving inquiries cannot be entertained.

What did the court decide?

Apart from one copy of a contract bond (which could not even be read) and a four-line representation, nothing was placed on record to substantiate the petitioner's allegations. ¶9

Rajkumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 3032 of 2025

¶3

Rajkumar Yadav

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and 6 others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Pradeep K. Tiwari for Jagadish Prasad Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Seema Agarwal (S.C.)

¶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 seeking setting up an inquiry against respondent Nos. 6 and 7 alleging that they have embezzled government money by showing construction works of 500 mtrs. link road (Village-Laxmanpur to Patila Gauspur).

¶9

A perusal of the petition indicates that except for filing one copy of contract bond, even which also cannot be read and a four-line representation made by the petitioner making the allegation, nothing more has been placed on record to substantiate the allegations made by the petitioner.

¶10

The petition is absolutely cursory and apparently, has been filed seeking a roving inquiry, based on making allegations by sending a communication dated 08.07.2025.

¶11

Filing of PILs, based on such cursory material, cannot be entertained, the same is, therefore, dismissed.

¶12

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

¶13

September 25, 2025 Mukesh Pal/Sazia

¶14

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

Rajkumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases