Dismissed¶12

Sonu v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Panchayat Raj Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC1 May 2025WPIL/424/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 424 of 2025; cremation grounds; rural areas; selection process; Government Order dated 26.05.2016; Department of Panchayat Raj; State of U.P.; norms prescribed under Government Order; relevant decisive considerations; preference to a place; development at the identified place; no interference called for; writ petition dismissed as withdrawn; withdrawal permitted; Lucknow Bench; coram Masoodi and Srivastava-I, JJ.; order dated 1.5.2025. Relevant to matters involving development/siting of cremation grounds under a Government Order and PILs lacking pleaded premises.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the writ petition; the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. ¶12

Sonu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Panchayat Raj Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Permission to withdraw the writ petition; the petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether judicial interference was warranted in the public interest writ petition concerning the place for which relief was sought for development of a cremation ground, where the petitioner had neither established satisfaction of the norms prescribed under the Government Order dated 26.05.2016 nor disclosed the relevant decisive considerations.

¶9

Court's answer

Finding that no premise had been set out in the writ petition establishing satisfaction of the norms prescribed under the Government Order or disclosing the relevant decisive considerations, the Court found it difficult to appreciate why the preference may be accorded to the place for which relief was sought.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

The Court recorded that the development at the identified place stands in accordance with the relevant Government Order and that, therefore, no interference was called for in the present writ petition.

¶10

Key takeaways

On the prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court permitted withdrawal and dismissed the writ petition instituted in public interest as withdrawn.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:25026-DB); PIL No. 424 of 2025; coram Attau Rahman Masoodi and Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, JJ.; Order Date 1.5.2025. Petitioner Sonu sought relief in a matter concerning development of cremation grounds in rural areas, which, as stated by the Additional Chief Standing Counsel on instructions, is regulated under a Government Order issued on 26.05.2016. The Court noted that the petitioner had not established that the norms prescribed under the Government Order were satisfied and that the relevant decisive considerations had not been disclosed in the writ petition; finding no premise set out therein, the Court found it difficult to appreciate why the preference may be accorded to the place for which relief was sought, recorded that the development at the identified place stood in accordance with the relevant Government Order, and held that no interference was called for. On the petitioner's request, the writ petition instituted in public interest was dismissed as withdrawn.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25026-DB

¶2

Court No. - 1

¶3

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 424 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Sonu

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Panchayat Raj Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Prakash Srivastava

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh

¶7

Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶8

1. Heard Sri Vijay Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Anupama Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, and Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 4.

¶9

2. Smt. Anupama Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, on the basis of instructions, has stated that the development of cremation grounds through the process of selection in rural areas is regulated under a Government Order issued on 26.05.2016. In the present case, however, the petitioner has not established that the norms as prescribed under the Government Order were satisfied. That apart, the relevant considerations, which are decisive for such a development, have also not been disclosed in the present writ petition. In absence of any premise set out in the writ petition, it is difficult to appreciate as to why the preference

¶10

may be accorded to the place, for which, relief is sought herein. The development at the identified place stands in accordance with the relevant Government Order. Therefore, no interference is called for in the present writ petition.

¶11

3. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner says that he may be permitted to withdraw this writ petition and prays that the same may be dismissed as withdrawn.

¶12

4. In the background of what has been recorded above, the writ petition instituted in public interest is dismissed as withdrawn .

¶13

[Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.] [Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.] Order Date :- 1.5.2025 cks/-

¶14

Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sonu v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Panchayat Raj Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Panchayat Raj Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ghanshyam Dubey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Lko. and 5 Others

Vinod Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Lko. and 6 Others

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 4 Others Vs Shyam Kishore

Ram Prakash Rai Alias Rai Ramprakash Mahvirbhai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Lko. and Others

Prabhat Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education Lko. and 5 Others

Neeraj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Panchayati Raj Lko. and 3 Others