Pradeep Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1155 of 2026

¶3

Pradeep Kumar Tiwari

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and 5 others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Ajitabh Kumar Choubey, Braj Bhushan Rai
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Sudhanshu Srivastava, A.C.S.C., Hari Nath Tripathi, Sarthak Singh

¶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 enforcement of order dated 12.09.2023 passed by the U.P. Pollution Control Board ('Board') against respondent no. 6.

¶9

Submissions have been made that though the order was passed for closing down the brick-kiln way back on 12.09.2023 and communication was made to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Respondent No. 4 by the Board requiring him to close down the brick-kiln, no action in this regard has been taken and, therefore, the respondents be directed to ensure that the brick-kiln is closed down.

¶10

A perusal of the petition indicates that the petitioner has indicated his address as Village & Post Ekil, P.S. Pakdi, Tehsil Sikandarpur, District Ballia and the brick-kiln in question is situated at Village Narhani Turkwalia, Post Jumai, Tehsil Sikandarpur, District Ballia. Nowhere in the petition, the petitioner has indicated his credentials and as to how despite being a resident of different village, he is affected by the said brick-kiln and alleged non-compliance of the directions issued by the Board. The only indication made in the petition is that the petitioner was filing the petition in the interest of public at large as several persons of the village, aggrieved by the inaction of the authority, illegal and unauthorized running of brick-kiln have put their problem before the petitioner as a reason for filing the present petition. In the affidavit, the

¶11

WPIL No. 1155 of 2026

¶12

2

¶13

petitioner has indicated his occupation as social worker.

¶14

Claiming occupation as social worker at the age of 34 years and filing of petition pertaining to a different village necessarily means that filing of the petition or raising public issues have been made a means of earning livelihood by the petitioner.

¶15

Filing of petitions in the nature of public interest by the petitioner claiming himself to be a social worker and social work as his occupation, cannot be countenanced.

¶16

The petition is, therefore, dismissed .

¶17

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

¶18

May 5, 2026 Sandeep/Sazia

¶19

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

Pradeep Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar 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

Naveen Kumar Shrivastava Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Ravindra Ahlawat @ Ravindra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mohd Ishmail vs State of Up and 4 Others

C/M Dunka Junior High School Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Amit Mishra Vs Union of India and 9 Others

Mohammad Khalid and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others