Charandip Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Lko and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Charandip Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Lko and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should entertain a PIL seeking (i) a direction to restrain the alleged illegal soil/sand mining on the river bank of the Sharda River in Tehsil Palia, District Lakhimpur Kheri, within a 5 km radius of the river area from Sharda Bridge towards Palia, and (ii) cancellation of the existing mining leases allotted in that area.

Court's answer

None of the mining lease holders were impleaded as parties, despite the fact that the petitioner had sought cancellation of the leases themselves.

Ratio / Principle

The Court observed that the petitioner filed the PIL without making any investigation into the subject matter, having become aware of an issue which according to the petitioner himself had been going on for a long time only from 24.12.2025, and that the filing of repeated representations and the approach to the Court reflected something more than the real public interest involved in the matter.

Key takeaways

For lack of sufficient investigation and necessary parties, the Court found no reason to entertain the petition and dismissed it.ratio¶¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Public Interest Litigation No. 145 of 2026 (Charandip Singh v. State of U.P. and others) — Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Arun Bhansali, CJ and Jaspreet Singh, J; decided February 18, 2026). Petition purportedly in public interest seeking a direction to restrain alleged illegal soil/sand mining on the river bank of the Sharda River in Tehsil Palia, District Lakhimpur Kheri, within a 5 km radius of the river area from Sharda Bridge towards Palia, and to cancel the existing mining leases allotted in that area, DISMISSED. The Court noted that the petitioner claimed awareness of the purportedly long-standing illegal mining only from 24.12.2025, followed by repeated representations (29.12.2025, 09.01.2026, 16.01.2026, 28.01.2026) before filing the petition on 05.02.2026; that the petitioner made no investigation into the subject matter; and that none of the mining lease holders — whose leases the petitioner sought to have cancelled — were impleaded as parties, though counsel stated that those with authority to cancel the leases had been joined. Observing that these circumstances reflected 'something more than the real public interest involved in the matter', and for lack of sufficient investigation and necessary parties, the Court found no reason to entertain the petition.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 145 of 2026

Charandip Singh

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of U.P. through Addl. Chief Secy. Lko. and 5 others	Revenue .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) :	S.K. Singhaniya
Counsel for Respondent(s) :	Ms. Parul Bajpai, A.C.S.C.

Chief Justice's Court

HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

This petition, purportedly in public interest, has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the opposite parties to restrain the illegal mining on the river bank of Sharda River in Tehsil Palia, District Lakhimpur Kheri on soil/sand mining in the 5 km radius of the river area from Sharda Bridge towards Palia and to cancel the existing mining leases allotted in the said area, with immediate effect.

A perusal of the petition indicates that suddenly from 24.12.2025, the petitioner started making representations regarding the purported illegal mining activity, which was followed by representations dated 29.12.2025, 09.01.2026, 16.01.2026 and 28.01.2026 and the petition has been filed on 05.02.2026.

It is not the case of the petitioner that the purported illegal mining started overnight, none of the mining lease holders have been impleaded as party despite the fact that the petitioner had sought cancellation of leases itself.

When a query was put, the counsel indicated that those who have the authority to cancel the mining lease, have been impleaded as party.

Filing of a PIL without making any investigation into the subject matter and suddenly becoming aware of an issue which according to the petitioner himself is going on for a long time, filing of repeated

WPIL No. 145 of 2026

2

representations and approaching this Court clearly reflects something more than the real public interest involved in the matter.

For lack of sufficient investigation and necessary parties, we do not find any reason to entertain the petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed .

(Jaspreet Singh,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.)

February 18, 2026 Sandeep/Asheesh

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