Mitra Sen vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents no.1, 2 and 3 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent no.4.

¶10

The instant petition has been preferred in public interest seeking to remove the illegal encroachments allegedly made by the private respondents no.5 over the land of Gata No.367, situate in village Tundawal, Police Station Sursa, Tahsil Sadar, District Hardoi.

¶11

Shri Rahul Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State has provided a copy of the written instructions under the signature of the Tahsildar, Sadar, District Hardoi dated 10.04.2026 wherein it has been stated that an order under Section 67 has already been passed against the private respondent on 08.04.2026. Further, it indicates that the petitioner and the private respondent are having personal animosity and they are engaged in a litigation which is evident from an FIR bearing No.89 of 2025 under Section 115 (2) BNS, 352, 351 (3) IPC relating to threat.

¶12

It is further urged that the instant petition is nothing but an attempt to ventilate the personal grievance which has been camouflaged as public interest petition.

¶13

WPIL No. 330 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

The said written instructions are taken on record and copy thereof was also provided to the counsel for the petitioner who submits that the aforesaid facts were not disclosed by the petitioner to the said counsel for the petitioner

¶16

Be that as it may, this issue of misuse of public interest litigation was noticed by the Apex Court way back in State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 402 and the relevant portion thereof are being read as under:-

¶17

"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:-

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

(4) The Courts should be prima facie satisfied regarding

¶22

the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL.

¶23

WPIL No. 330 of 2026

¶24

3

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

(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.

¶28

(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"

¶29

Considering the aforesaid, this Court finds that an attempt to misuse the process of public interest has been made by the petitioner. This Court does not deem appropriate to entertain the petition which is dismissed with a costs of Rs.2500/- to be deposited by the petitioner with the Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court within two weeks from today.

¶30

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶31

April 16, 2026

¶32

ank

¶33

Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mitra Sen v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mitra Sen v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C/M Ganga Apartment Resident Welfare Society Thru. Secy. Shri. Devi Shankar Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Institutional Finance Lko. and 4 Others

The New India Assurance Company Limited Thru.Deputy Manager,Legal Hub Lko. vs Ram Shree and 3 Others

Omkar Nath Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 5 Others

Firoj Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Sachin Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Govt. Lko. and 5 Others

Kusum Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Jome Lko. and 3 Others