Vijay Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 8 Others

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behal of respondent nos. 1 to 4 has been accepted by the office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel. Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 5.

¶12

By means of the present petition, filed in public interest, the petitioner prays for the following reliefs:-

¶13

"A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent no. 2 to 5 to take action against the Respondent no. 6 to 9 for vacating to encroachment over the GATA No. 421/0.405 Hectare situate at Village-Budhhagaura, Mahmoodpur, Tehsil-Ramnagar District Barabanki in Compliance of orders dated 06.11.2023, 20.12.2023, 28.012.2023 and 28.12.2023 and R.C. Prpatra-19."

¶14

At the outset, Sri Rahul Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has not disclosed his credentials.

¶15

It has also been not indicated whether the PIL-petitioner has any private right or it is purely in public interest and this fact has not been indicated perhaps for the reason that the petitioner himself knew that he is engaged in a litigation at the behest of the private respondents.

¶16

A copy of the written instructions dated 09th April, 2026 has been

¶17

WPIL No. 324 of 2026

¶18

2

¶19

provided to the Court for perusal which is taken on record wherein the extract of the general diary has been placed along with a copy of the First Information Report dated 21.01.2026 wherein allegations have been made against the present petitioner.

¶20

It is urged that neither the petitioner has filed the instant petition in public interest rather he is involved in a litigation relating to the same issue and all these facts have not been disclosed and in such circumstances, the instant petition cannot be entertained in public interest.

¶21

A copy of the written instructions were also confronted to the learned counsel for the petitioner who could not dispute the same, however, at this stage, he submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition.

¶22

Despite the permission to withdraw the present petition, the fact remains that no person is entitled to misuse a process of law.

¶23

The purpose of PIL is sacrosanct and a person who comes to Court must come with clean hands. This issue has already been considered by the Apex Court in State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 402 and the relevant portion thereof are being read as under:-

¶24

"“181. We have carefully considered the facts of the present case. We have also examined the law declared by this court and other courts in a number of judgments. In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, it has become imperative to issue the following directions:-

¶25

(1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for

¶26

extraneous considerations.

¶27

(2) Instead of every individual judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the Rules prepared

¶28

WPIL No. 324 of 2026

¶29

3

¶30

by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this court immediately thereafter.

¶31

(3) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of petitioner before entertaining a PIL.

¶32

(4) The Courts should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL.

¶33

(5) The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition.

¶34

(6) The Courts should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions.

¶35

(7) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation.

¶36

(8) The Courts should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous consideration"

¶37

Applying the aforesaid principles, it is a clear case where the petitioner has concealed the facts as well as has soiled the sacrosanct and pure stream of a PIL for his oblique motive, which cannot be countenanced, accordingly, the petition is dismissed with a token cost of Rs. 2,500/- to be deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Center of this Court within a period of two weeks failing which the same shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue from the petitioner.

¶38

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶39

April 10, 2026 Asheesh

¶40

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

Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 8 Others

C/M Mahatma Gandhi Inter College Thru. Manager Ahsan Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 2 Others

Mohd. Nadeem vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko. and 7 Others

Ashok Kumar Trivedi vs Deputy Labour Commissioner U.P. and 2 Others

Harpal Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Shri Badrinath Mahila Mahavidyalaya Thru. Manager Meera Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Basic Edu. Lko and 5 Others