Shiv Mohan vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Railways Central Sectt. New Delhi and 13 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 893 of 2025

Shiv Mohan

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Railways Central Sectt. New Delhi And 13 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Abhishek	Awasthi	, Saurabh Up	adhyay
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: A.S.G.I.,	Avnish K	umar Singh,	C.S.C.,
	Manish	Jauhari,	Mohammed	Hamza
	Shamim,	Namit	Sharma,	Nishant
	Shukla, Anand	Ratnesh	Chandra,	Shikhar

¶9

Court No. - 1

¶10

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

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Counsel and D.S.G.I. assisted by Shri Varun Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1 and 14. Short counter affidavit filed today by respondent no. 13 is taken on record.

¶12

On 29.8.2025, we had passed the following order:-

¶13

"1. Heard Sri Satish Chandra Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Abhishek Awasthi and Sri Saurabh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Counsel/ D.S.G.I. assisted by Varun Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 14, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 11, Sri Namit Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6, Sri Nishant Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no. 7, Sri Avnish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 10, Sri Manish Jauhari, learned counsel for the respondent no. 12 and Sri Shikhar Anand, learned counsel for the respondent no. 13.

¶14

2. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State has apprised to the Court that the Deputy Commissioner Traffic, Lucknow has already constituted Three Members Committee for removing oil tankers illegally parked over the Amausi over-bridge.

¶15

3. Since we have been informed that the Committee has already been constituted, therefore, let the Committee take all possible efforts as per law so that the illegal parking over the Amausi over-bridge is not allowed. Oil Company shall also take adequate measures to facilitate the aforesaid.

¶16

4. List this matter on 6.10.2025.

¶17

WPIL No. 893 of 2025

¶18

2

¶19

5. On the next date of listing, a report shall be submitted by the Deputy Commissioner Traffic, Lucknow in respect of grievance of the petitioner and the measures taken to redress the said grievance. On that date, Deputy Commissioner Traffic, Lucknow shall join the Court proceedings through video conferencing."

¶20

3. On 06.10.2025, we had passed the following order:-

¶21

"1. In compliance of our order dated 29.08.2025, a report has been submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic), Police Commissionerate Lucknow alongwith an affidavit which is taken on record. Petitioner's Counsel wants to go through the same.

¶22

2. Let some responsible officer of Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Lucknow Depot, Amousi and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Lucknow Depot, Amousi also join these proceedings through video conferencing alongwith Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic), Police Commissionerate Lucknow on the next date.

¶23

3. List this case on 10.10.2025 in terms of earlier order."

¶24

Shri Kamlesh Dixit, Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic), Lucknow is present in person.

¶25

Shri Vipin Kumar Arya, Deputy General Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited has joined the proceedings through video conferencing.

¶26

The D.C.P. (Traffic), Lucknow informs us that as many as 495 accused were challaned who were illegally and wrongly parking their vehicles/oil tankers on the flyover. He submits that there are 118 persons who are habitual in wrong parking of the vehicles which are oil tankers.

¶27

We direct Shri Rishabh Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel to seek instruction from the Regional Transport Officer, Lucknow as to what further action can be taken in respect of such vehicles/oil tankers, owners of which are habitually parking them on the flyover as appears from the affidavit filed by the D.C.P. (Traffic), Lucknow, copy of which shall be forwarded by learned Standing Counsel to the Regional Transport Officer, Lucknow who shall file his own affidavit in the matter.

¶28

Let the Regional Transport Officer, Lucknow be impleaded as an opposite party in this petition during course of the day.

¶29

Shri Vipin Kumar Arya, who has joined these proceedings, says that

¶30

WPIL No. 893 of 2025

¶31

3

¶32

they keep writing letters to the contractors of the oil tankers not to park their vehicles on the flyover, but the contractors or their employees it appears may not be adhering to the guidance and directions issued by the oil company.

¶33

Similar is the statement made by Shri Jauhari, learned counsel appearing for Indian Oil Corporation Limited. The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited has filed the affidavit as required, which is taken on record. Copy thereof shall be provided to learned Standing Counsel also.

¶34

The Indian Oil Corporation Limited represented through Shri Jauhari shall file the desired affidavit before the next date.

¶35

Para No. 11 of the affidavit filed by the D.C.P. (Traffic), Lucknow reads as under:-

¶36

"11. That it is humbly submitted that the traffic police have taken several measures and steps to address the grievance of the petitioner raised in the present petition. It is further submitted thatoil tankers are not being permitted to park over the Amausi Over Bridge and clear and smooth traffic movement is being maintained in the area. It is also pertinent to mention here that by and large the onus lies upon the aforesaid petroleum companies to establish a proper mechanism to regulate the heavy movements of their oil tankers, so that they are not parked on public roads."

¶37

He says that as of now whatever encroachment or illegal parking was there had been removed, but this is a recurring phenomenon, therefore, a permanent solution is required to be found, for which the oil companies had to do the needful. The Regional Transport Officer, Lucknow also will have to step in as far as it may be permissible in law.

¶38

At this stage, Shri S.C. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner informed that earlier the oil tankers used to reach the depot directly through Kanpur Road, but on account of some obstructions, they are unable to reach the depot directly. If this was permitted, this problem could be allayed. It is for the D.C.P. (Traffic), Lucknow present to look into the matter as to how far it is feasible.

¶39

The D.C.P. (Traffic), Lucknow and the Regional Transport Officer,

¶40

WPIL No. 893 of 2025

¶41

4

¶42

Lucknow shall also join this proceedings through video conferencing on the next date apart from the oil companies.

¶43

The list of 118 habitual transporters who are illegally parking on the flyover shall be provided by the learned Standing Counsel to Shri Manish Jauhari and Shri Shikhar Anand, learned counsel for oil companies so that the oil companies may do the needful at their end.

¶44

Connect and list with WPIL No. 861 of 2024 on 18.11.2025.

¶45

In the meantime, our earlier order shall be complied and the police authorities or the Regional Transport Officer, Lucknow, as the case may be, shall ensure that there is no illegal parking of oil tankers on the said flyover and if it is, then appropriate action shall be taken, as per law.

¶46

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

¶47

October 10, 2025

¶48

Shravan

¶49

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shiv Mohan v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Railways Central Sectt. New Delhi and 13 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Mohan v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Railways Central Sectt. New Delhi and 13 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

Mayank Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institutional Finance Govt. Lko. and 24 Others

Shailja Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Director Bal Vikas Seva and Pushtahar Vibhag Lko. and 5 Others

Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences Lko. Thru. Director vs M/S Trishul Enterprises Thru. Partner Mr. Ashish Gupta

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others vs Akhtar Ali

C/M of Dwarika Prasad Vidyalaya Benipur Association Thru. Ex President Upendra Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. Thru.Its Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 6 Others

Amit Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Medical Education Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others