Dismissed¶15

Rishi Kesh Tiwari v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Public Interest Litigation – maintainability

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2025WPIL/3629/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Arun Bhansali, CJ and Kshitij Shailendra, J), PIL No. 3629 of 2025, decided November 26, 2025 - Rishi Kesh Tiwari v. State of U.P. and 5 others - PIL dismissed; challenge to grant of tender for vehicle stand at C.M.O. Office; petitioner failed to disclose credentials/locus standi; tender participant must approach the Court; PIL at the instance of someone else not countenanced.

What did the court decide?

Where the plea pertains to depriving an appropriate person of grant of tender, the person who had participated in the tender has to approach the Court; a petition apparently filed at the instance of someone else cannot be countenanced in the nature of a PIL. ¶14

Rishi Kesh Tiwari vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 3629 of 2025

Rishi Kesh Tiwari

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and 5 others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Yogeshwar Rai
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Akanksha Sharma (S.C.)

¶9

Chief Justice's Court

¶10

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

¶11

This petition, purportedly in public interest, has been filed by the petitioner seeking to question the action of the respondents in giving the tender for vehicle stand at the C.M.O. Office.

¶12

A perusal of the petition indicates that the petitioner has failed to indicate his credentials and orally, it is submitted that he is a farmer.

¶13

When a query was put as to under what circumstances the petitioner became aware of the circumstance as indicated in the petition, submission made was that the tender has not been granted to appropriate person.

¶14

Once the plea pertains to depriving an appropriate person of grant of tender, the person who had participated in the tender, has to approach the Court. The petition apparently has been filed at the instance of someone else which in the nature of PIL cannot be countenanced.

¶15

The petition is without any substance, the same is, therefore, dismissed.

¶16

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

¶17

November 26, 2025 RK/AKShukla

¶18

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rishi Kesh Tiwari v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rishi Kesh Tiwari v. State of U.P. and 5 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

Similar cases

Committee of Management, Masdarul Uloom Education Society Madarsa Uloom-Asdaquia, Purani Chakiya a vs State of Up and 3 Others

Allahabad High School Society and Another vs State of Up and 5 Others

Mohd. Ehsan @ Pappu vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Nandini Gupta and 18 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sunil Kumar Tiwari vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Avadhesh vs the State of Up and 6 Others