Dismissed¶7

Shyam Ji Lal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 7 Others

Public Interest Litigation – maintainability

Allahabad HC21 Apr 2026WPIL/355/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; Shyam Ji Lal v. State of U.P. and 7 Others, PIL No. - 355 of 2026; Jaspreet Singh, J.; decided 28.04.2026; PIL dismissed for non-disclosure of petitioner's credentials despite time granted under Chapter 22 Rule 3-A of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952; Gurmet Singh Soni v. State of U.P., 2021 (5) ADJ 409, applied; alleged encroachment on land reserved for public purposes; dismissal does not absolve authorities of their obligations.

What did the court decide?

Applying the principles laid down in Gurmet Singh Soni v. State of U.P. to the averments made in the petition and the supplementary affidavit, there is apparently no disclosure of credentials by the petitioner. ¶6

Shyam Ji Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 7 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 355 of 2026

Shyam Ji Lal

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Lko. And 7 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Ram Dheeraj
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Mohan Singh

¶9

Court No. - 8

¶10

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents no.1 to 4 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel.

¶12

The record indicates that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by means of order dated 21.04.2026 had required the petitioner to file an affidavit in light of Chapter 22 Rule 3-A of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.

¶13

In furtherance thereof, the petitioner has filed a supplementaryaffidavit which is taken on record. In the said affidavit credentials more fully in paragraph 3 to 5.

¶14

A specific query was put to the counsel for the petitioner that the word credentials which is required to be disclosed by a petitioner while filing a petition under public interest has certain convocations and whether in that context, the same has been explained.

¶15

To the aforesaid, it has been stated that the petitioner is a vigilant person in protection of legal right of the public and is trying to preserve the land sanctity as reserved for public purposes by adopting various legal remedy. The credentials as indicated in the paragraph aforesaid are as vague as ever. It could have been gainsaid for the petitioner who have understood the meaning of the word credentials which has been made the subject matter of interpretation by Division Benches of this Court in

¶16

WPIL No. 355 of 2026

¶17

¶18

Gurmet Singh Soni v. State of U.P. 2021 (5) ADJ 409.

¶19

Applying the aforesaid principles to the averments made in the petition as well as in the supplementary-affidavit, apparently, there is no disclosure of credentials.

¶20

Accordingly, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to entertain the aforesaid petition as the petitioner has not indicated the credentials despite time having been granted. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed for the aforesaid reasons.

¶21

However, it is made clear that mere dismissal of the petition will not absolve the authorities of their obligations and any other person who if may have caused the illegal encroachment as alleged in the petition.

¶22

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶23

April 28, 2026

¶24

ank

¶25

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

Shyam Ji Lal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Ji Lal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 7 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Managing Committee National Inter College Thru. Manager Kaushlesh Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Finance Lko. and Another

Sakshi Shriwastav Thru. Her Natural Guardian, Mother Sami Srivastava vs Navoday Vidyalay Samiti Thru. Commissioner and 2 Others

Rajesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Lko. and 2 Others

Gaya Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. / Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko. and 5 Others

Haseeb Khan and Another vs Kailasha Devi and 5 Others

Poonam Kapoor vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Lko and 2 Others