# Ajai Kumar Singh v. State of U.P and others

- **Citation:** (2010) 2 ILRA 617
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-06-28
- **Case number:** Writ Petition No. 1093 of 2006
- **Bench:** Dharam Veer Sharma, Dr. Satish Chandra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ajai-kumar-singh-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41670
- **Pages:** 28

## Text

_Characters 0–39,931 of 90,989. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39931 for what follows._

2 All] Ajai Kumar Singh V State of U.P and others
617
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.06.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DHARAM VEER SHARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. SATISH CHANDRA, J.

Writ Petition No. 1093 of 2006

Ajai Kumar Singh

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Constitution
of
India-Art.226-Public
Interest
Litigation-by
a
Practicing
Advocate-Locus-Standi-Nothing
on
record causing loss to public exchequercan helping the builders-misconceived
petition by an Advocate-inspite of time
granted No rejoinder affidavit field-heldconduct of petitioner itself makes disentitled to maintain the petition-as
matter referred to Bar Council for
appropriate action against petitioner-No
monitory penality required.

Held: Para 41 & 42

Thus having regard to the contents of
paragraphs 7 to 11 referred to above it
transpires that there is not even an iota
of evidence to prove that respondents
caused any loss to the public exchequer
or they acted in a fashion to help
bidders. Curiously enough no bidder has
come forward to challenge the entire
transaction and the petitioner who is not
aggrieved
person
has
assailed
the
auction of the respondents without any
locus on an economic matter which is
not in violation of any rule.

Thus this petition has not been filed with
clean
hands.
The
conduct
of
the
petitioner dis-entitles him to maintain
the petition. However, we find that the
petitioner who is an Advocate should not
have filed this writ petition. The matter
is referred to the Bar Council of U.P. for
appropriate
decision
in
the
matter.
Accordingly, no monetary penalty is
required to be imposed against the
petitioner for filing this petition.
Case law discussed:
(2002) 2 SCC 333, (2009) 7 SCC 561, (2004) 3
SCC 349, 2005 (1) SCC 590, 2010 AIR SCW
1029, 1981 Supp SCC 87, (1982) 2 SCC,
(1992) 4 SCC 494, (1992) 4 SCC 494, 1980, 1
SCC 81, 1979, 4 SCC 167, (2003) 6 SCC
230,(2002) 2 SCC 333, (1987) 2 SCC,295 this
Court held:(SCC pp 334-35,para 61), (1992) 4
SCC 305 this Court opined: (SCC p. 348, para
109), (2000) 10 SCC 664 it was held: (SCC
pp.762-63, paras 229 & 232), (1998) 8 SCC
143 it has been held: (SCC pp. 152-53, para
28), (1992) 4 SCC 305, (1993) 1 SCC 561,
(1992) 4 SCC 305: 1993 SCC (Cri) 36, (2009)
7 SCC 561, AIR 2001 SCC 1739, AIR 2005 SC
540, (2002)2 SCC 333, AIR 2003 SC 1344

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dharam Veer Sharma, J.)

1. The instant writ petition designed
and styled as Public Interest Litigation
has been filed by the petitioner Ajai
Kumar Singh, a Practicing Advocate. It
is directed against the auction of certain
commercial plots situate at Vibhuti
Khand,
Gomti
Nagar
Scheme
of
Lucknow Development Authority. The
petitioner has prayed for quashing of the
allotment as held in pursuance of the
auction notices. It is further prayed that a
writ in the nature of mandamus be issued
commanding the respondents to stop
constructions on the allotted lands and a
direction may be issued to the C.B.I. to
inquire into the matter and submit its
report to this Court.

2. The petitioner has come with a
case that as a practising Advocate he has
opportunity of interacting with people
belonging to different walk of life and
incidentally he met some prospective
bidders of the land in question who have
filtered out certain informations which
reveals
deliberate
activities
of
the
respondents with an ulterior motive to
618 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
fill up there wallets resulting in heavy
losses to the public exchequer. The
authorities are functioning in utter
violation of the provisions and spirit of
the Constitution. Authorities had been
charged with corruption.

It is alleged that two tender notices
were published on 14.06.2005 and
16.06.2005, annexures 1 and 2 in a daily
Hindi
Newspaper
for
auction
of
commercial plots in Vibhuti Khand of
the Gomti Nagar Scheme for Group
Housing and Shops. On a bare reading of
the tender notices it transpired that the
rate of land per sq.mt. is nearly 3 times
lesser than the rate of fixed for the land
in the vicinity. The reserved rate of land
is fixed for Rs.6000 per sq.mt. whereas
the rate in the open market is more than
Rs.15,000 per sq.mt. The same was done
to benefit certain builders. It is alleged
that in the vicinity within one kilometer
distance at Viraj Khand the property was
auctioned on the quoted price of
Rs.17,000/- per sq.mt and in the same
way in Vastu Khand some commercial
plots were auctioned at the rate of
Rs.16000
to
30,000
per
sq.mt.
Respondents created an opportunity to
extract heavy illegal gratification by not
providing in the auction notices Floor
Area Ratio and ground coverage. It is
always provided in every auction notice
in
terms
of
the
byelaws
of
the
Development Authority.

3. After the auction of the land in
question to benefit their favorite builders
respondents have managed to influence
the Government to reduce the stamp duty
payable on the registration of the land for
personal gains.

4. Lucknow Mahayojna 2021
framed by the Government provides that
the land in question may be used for
commercial category but in the instant
case in utter disregard to the specific
provision the land has been auctioned to
the builders for group housing.

The respondents/the officers of
Lucknow Development Authority are
indulging in corruption in furtherance of
the same a scheme of Gomti Nagar Phase
II was advertised. The advertisement was
not made in major newspapers of
circulation. The dates for submission of
tender were fixed for 12.1.2006 to
17.1.2006
while
14.1.2006
and
15.1.2006 were holidays. It is further
averred that in thecreation of Lohia Park,
Gomti Nagar a sum of Rs.50 crores have
already been spent by the Lucknow
Development Authority and the same has
been counter signed by the Secretary of
the Lucknow Development Authority but
the then Secretary refused to sign the
same.

It is further urged that the petitioner
incidentally
met
some
prospective
bidders of the land in question who have
filtered out information of unwarranted
conditions provided in the auction notice.
Accordingly the instant petition has been
filed to bring these facts to the notice of
the court. Thus the petitioner's case is
that the reserve price of the plots in
question was kept 1/3rd of market rate of
the land with a view to extend benefit to
certain bidders and further LDA fixed
certain arbitrary conditions like quantum
of solvency and earnest money for
different sizes of the plots. The Floor
Area Ratio has been given to the builders
much more than the prescribed Floor
Area Ratio. The allotment of plot to the
builders of the choice is violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution. The
2 All] Ajai Kumar Singh V State of U.P and others
619
auction
was
not
fair,
accordingly
petitioner has filed the Public Interest
Litigation alleging himself to be the
public spirited person.

Respondent nos. 2 to 6 have
contested the petition. They have filed
joint
counter
affidavit
and
denied
allegations made in the petition in toto.
The case of respondents on factual aspect
is as under;

5. The land in question is a land
earmarked for commercial activity as per
lay out plan for Vibhuti Khand, Gomti
Nagar Scheme, Lucknow. A tender
notice dated 07.11.2004 was published in
the daily newspapers The Times of India
and Dainik Jagran for the land in
question as commercial land with reserve
price of Rs.6000 of which the tender
submission date was 19.1.2004. No
tender were received till the time and
date of the submission of the tender.
However, later on two offers without
earnest money were received with
conditions and the same were not in the
interest of the Lucknow Development
Authority resulting which the same were
not accepted by the competent authority.
For the land in question again tender
notice were published in the daily
newspaper Dainik Jagran, Amar Ujala,
Hindustan Times and Times of India
with date of submission of tender as
07.02.2005 and date of auction as
08.02.2005 as commercial land. No
tenders were received till the last date of
submission. For the land in question
against tender notice dated 16.02.2005
was published in the daily newspapers
Times of India, Dainik Jagran and
Hindustan Times with last date of tender
submission as 28.02.2005 and tender
auction as 01.03.2005 as commercial
land but no tenders were received till the
last date. Thus, at last the proposal was
placed before the Board of the Lucknow
Development Authority on 09.05.2005 to
the effect that on the commercial land in
question, only commercial activity may
be permitted on ground floor and for the
remaining floors commercial activity and
Group Housing may be permitted if need
be on the same Floor Area Ratio,
coverage and set back which is for
commercial land.

6.

The
Board
of
Lucknow
Development Authority accepted the
proposal with the conditions that the
price of the land in question would
remain which is for commercial land.
The decision of the Board of Lucknow
Development Authority was sent to the
State Government for needful. For
compliance of the Board of Lucknow
Development Authority decision dated
09.05.2005, a committee was constituted
to lay down the detailed terms and
conditions for advertising the tender
notice and auction. The committee
submitted the report and the same was
approved by the competent authority.
Accordingly the tender notice dated
29.05.2005,
amended
tender
dated
14.6.2005 which relates to 11 plots in
Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow
was published in daily newspapers for
submission of tenders on 21.06.2005 and
auction to be held on 22.06.2005. On
21.06.2005 tenders were submitted in
response to the tender notice dated
29.05.2005, amended tender notice dated
14.06.2005 and tender notice dated
16.06.2005 which relates to 11 plots in
Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.
Of 35 tenders, technical bids were open
on 21.06.2005 and after scrutiny by a
Committee
comprising
of
Finance
620 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
Controller,
Lucknow
Development
Authority;
Chief
Town
Planner,
Lucknow Development Authority, Joint
Secretary,
Lucknow
Development
Authority, Executive System, Lucknow
Development Authority and Executive
Engineer,
Lucknow
Development
Authority, 02 tenders of M/s Shaurya
Towers Pvt Limited and M/s Brindavan
Gulmohan
Enterprises
were
recommended to be rejected and the
remaining 33 tenders were recommended
to be accepted.

7. The aforesaid recommendations
was accepted by the Vice Chairman,
Lucknow Development Authority. The
remaining 33 tenders whose technical bid
was in order were invited for open
auction on 22.06.2005. No protest or
representation against the tender notice
dated 29.05.2005, amended tender notice
dated 14.06.2005 and tender notice dated
16.06.2005
was
received
by
the
answering respondents upto 22.06.2005
and even with regard to the scrutiny of
the
technical
bid
no
protest
or
representation was received by Lucknow
Development
Authority
from
M/s
Shaurya Towers Pvt Limited and M/s
Brindavan Gulmohan Enterprises. An
open auction was held on 22.06.2005
amongst the qualified contestants with
respect to each plot keeping in view the
reserved
price
of
Rs.6000
per
sq.mt.indicated in the tender notice.

8. The highest bidder with respect
to each plot was recommended for
acceptance by the aforesaid committee
and at last accepted by the Vice
Chairman,
Lucknow
Development
Authority. The building plan for 09 plots
out of 11 plots also been approved and
the construction is in progress.

The reserve price has to be fixed
according to the actual status of the land
in question in accordance with the
Govenrment Order dated 03.06.2005
wherein the rate fixed for commercial
land is held to be twice of the residential
rate. The reserve price for residential
land in Gomti Nagar Scheme Phase I
including
Vibhuti
Khand
upto
30.11.2003 was Rs.2500 per sq.mt. and
the same was revised to Rs.3000 per
sq.mt. with effect from 01.12.2003
through order dated 29.11.2003.

9. Thus the rate for commercial
land with effect from 01.12.2003 was
Rs.6000.00 per sq.mt. i.e. double the
reserve price for residential land. The
reserve price of Gomti Nagar Phase-I
including Vibhuti Khand was further
revised to Rs.4000/- per sq.mt. with
effect from 01.04.2006 through order
dated 29.03.2006. The reserve price was
further revised to Rs.4400/- per sq.mt.
for Gomti Nagar Phase I including
Vibhuti
Khand
with
effect
from
01.09.2007
through
order
dated
03.09.2007. Thus the reserve price of the
Lucknow Development Authority for
Gomti Nagar Scheme Phase I including
Vibhuti Khand even on the date is
Rs.4400 per sq.mt for residential land
and double the same for commercial land
i.e. Rs.8800 per sq.mt. The price of
Rs.15000/- per sq.mt indicated by the
petitioner in the paragraph under reply
for
Vibhuti
Khand,
Gomti
Nagar,
Scheme, Lucknow is imaginary resulting
which
the
consequential
calculation
made by the petitioner in the paragraph
under reply is also imaginary. The
qualification for bidders was fixed in the
tender notice dated 29.05.2005, amended
tender notice dated 14.6.2005 and tender
notice dated 16.6.2005 on the basis of the
2 All] Ajai Kumar Singh V State of U.P and others
621
recommendation of the committee which
was
accepted
by
the
Vice
Chairman,Lucknow
Development
Authority. The Committee made the
recommendation after studying/analyzing
the similar conditions imposed by
Greater NOIDA Industrial Development
Authority.

10. The condition of solvency and
turnover
is
fixed
with
regard
to
commercial plots for construction of
commercial and residential and not for
those plots for which construction of
only commercial or only Group Housing
is permitted. If no restriction of solvency,
turnover and earnest money would have
been placed in the tender notice dated
29.05.2005, amended tender notice dated
14.06.2005 and tender notice dated
16.06.2005, then the object of making
development through developers upon
the land in question could have never
been achieved if the persons having low
solvency and turnover would have been
permitted to take part in the bid and
simultaneously the money in phased
manner could not have been realized by
the Lucknow Development Authority as
well as the interest of the public, who are
prospective buyers, would have been
adversely affected.

11. Commercial plot of Viraj
Khand, Gomti Nagar Scheme, Lucknow
and Vastu Khand, Gomti Nagar Scheme,
Lucknow referred in the paragraph under
reply can not be compared with the
commercial plots in Vibhuti Khand,
Gomti Nagar Scheme, Lucknow on
account of the location size of plots and
activities permitted. The condition of
solvency and turnover is fixed with
regard
to
commercial
plots
for
construction
of
commercial
and
residential and not for those plots for
which construction of only commercial
or only Group Housing is permitted. In
Viraj Khand Gomti Nagar scheme,
Lucknow and Vastu Khand, Gomti
Nagar
scheme,
Lucknow,
several
commercial plots were auctioned during
the relevant time of which the petitioner
is citing example and the highest bid for
the most of the said commercial plots
was almost at par with the highest bid of
Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Scheme,
Lucknow.

12. All the terms and conditions are
not published in the tender notice. The
details terms and conditions are indicated
in the tender form which can be
purchased from the office of the
Lucknow Development Authority. The
Floor Area Ratio and Ground Coverage
is 2.0 and 30% respectively in the case of
commercial plots in commercial area as
per Lucknow Development Authority
Building Byelaws, 2000. The tender
notice of Jaipur Development Authority
can not be compared with the tender
notice of the Lucknow Development
Authority.

The petitioner with regard to floor
area ratio has referred to Chapter 3 Part3
of
the
Lucknow
Development
Authority building byelaws, 2000 meant
for commercial area.

No reduction in stamp duty has been
granted by the State Government where
as on the contrary 10% of the stamp duty
has been paid by the allottees while
executing the registered agreement. Thus
no relaxation has been given to the
allottees.
622 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010

13.

As
per
Model
Zoning
Regulations issued by State Government,
the provisions of Group Housing in
commercial
area
on
conditions
is
permitted and accordingly the Board of
the Lucknow Development Authority
took a decision in its meeting dated
09.05.2005 and the said decision was
sent to the State Government for doing
the needful.

There is no loss of public exchequer
of the Lucknow Development Authority
and
the
amount
indicated
in
the
paragraph under reply is imaginary.
There was no reduction relaxation of
payment of stamp duty in the case of 11
plots in question. The Floor Area Ratio is
strictly in accordance with the Lucknow
Development
Authority
Building
Byelaws, 2000 meant for commercial
land in commercial area and not
otherwise. The cost of the 11 plots in
question is more than the reserve price
fixed in terms of the decision.

14. Petitioner has filed the present
writ petition before this Court as a proxy
petition on behalf of the prospective
bidders who had met the petitioner and
had given baseless information. The
prospective bidders can not be said to be
belonging to unrepresented group as they
could have very well preferred the
representation or complaint if any to the
Respondents in the Writ Petition and
later on could have filed a Writ Petition
if necessary before Court. The present
writ petition is not liable to be
entertained as Public Interest Litigation
and the same is liable to be dismissed
with cost payable to the answering
respondents.

15. The petitioner sought time for
filing
rejoinder
affidavit.
Several
opportunities were given to the petitioner
to file the same. But he has failed to file
any rejoinder affidavit. Thus the version
of respondents no. 2 to 6 in the counter
affidavit has not been contradicted by the
petitioner.

The parties were also given opportunity
to file written submissions, accordingly
written
submissions
on
behalf
of
Lucknow Development Authority have
been made. After going through the
submissions, it transpires that on issue
involved in the writ petition, the learned
counsel for the L.D.A. has contended
that
the
instant
petition
is
not
maintainable. He has made submissions
to the extent that the instant writ petition
does not fall within the parameters of
bonafide public interest litigation and the
petitioner cannot be treated as an
aggrieved person. Contentions raised are
as under:-

A. Whether the petitioner Sri Ajai
Kumar Singh has locus to file the instant
Public Interest Litigation?

B. The writ petition involving the
question of settlement of Commercial
Plots can not be termed to be a Public
Interest Litigation and when it is not a
Public
Interest
Litigation
then
the
petitioner can not be said to be aggrieved
person.

C. The Tenor of the writ petition
goes to show that it is a proxy petition
filed with malicious and capricious
intention.
2 All] Ajai Kumar Singh V State of U.P and others
623

D. The writ petition is liable to be
dismissed on the ground of non-joinder
of necessary party.

E. The conduct of the petitioner
during the proceedings of the instant writ
petition, as is evident from the order
sheet, has made him liable to pay
exemplary cost by filing a malicious
petitions and for abusing the process of
the Court.

F. On merits the petitioner has failed
to substantiate the allegations levelled by
him.
The
Lucknow
Development
Authority submits that the petitioner is
busy body and has tried to ventilate the
cause of certain prospective bidders.
Paragraph 19 of the writ petition is
relevant, which is as follows:-

"That the petitioner is a practicing
advocate
and
as
such
he
has
opportunities of interacting with people
belonging to different walks of life and
incidentally he has met some prospective
bidders of the land in question who have
been filtered out by imposing certain
unwarranted conditions provided in the
auction notice who through due diligence
provided to the petitioner all the facts
and figures given herein above."

It is further urged that the writ
petition filed by the petitioner in the
nature of Public Interest litigation is
tainted with improper motives and is
intended
to
thwart
the
Lucknow
Development
Authority
from
undertaking
various
developmental
activities for planned development of the
city of the Lucknow in accordance with
the provisions of Master Plan-2021 and
U.P. Urban Planning and Development
Act, 1973. Petitioner has abused the
process of this Hon'ble Court for oblique
considerations. Neither any violation of
statutory provision nor violation of any
fundamental rights has been prima facie
shown by the writ petitioner. Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of BALCO
employees' Union (Regd.) Vs. Union of
India, (2002) 2 SCC 333, at page 382
was pleased to hold as under:-

"92. In a democracy it is the
prerogative of each elected Government
to follow it's own policy. Often a change
in Government may result in the shift in
focus or change in economic policies.
Any such change may result in adversely
affecting some vested interests. Unless
any illegality is committed in the
execution of the policy or the same is
contrary to law or mala fide, a decision
bringing about change cannot per se be
interfered with by the Court.

97. Judicial interference by way of
PIL is available if there is injury to
public
because
of
dereliction
of
Constitutional or statutory obligations on
the part of the government. Here it is not
so and in the sphere of economic policy
or reform the Court is not the appropriate
forum. Every matter of public interest or
curiosity cannot be the subject matter of
PIL. Courts are not intended to and nor
should they conduct the administration of
the country. Courts will interfere only if
there is a clear violation of Constitutional
or
statutory
provisions
or
noncompliance by the State with it's
Constitutional or statutory duties. None
of these contingencies arise in this
present case."

Further in the case of Villianur
Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam Vs. Union
of India, (2009) 7 SCC 561, Hon'ble
624 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
Supreme Court was pleased to observe as
under:-

"168. In a democracy, it is the
prerogative of each elected Government
to follow its own policy. Often a change
in Government may result in the shift in
focus or change in economic policies.
Any such change may result in adversely
affecting some vested interests. Unless
any illegality is committed in the
execution of the policy or the same is
contrary to law or malafide, a decision
bringing about change cannot per se be
interfered with by the court.

169. It is neither within the domain
of the courts nor the scope of judicial
review to embark upon an enquiry as to
whether a particular public policy is wise
or whether better public policy can be
evolved. Nor are the courts inclined to
strike down a policy at the behest of a
petitioner merely because it has been
urged that a different policy would have
been fairer or wiser or more scientific or
more logical. Wisdom and advisability of
economic policy are ordinarily not
amenable to judicial review. In matters
relating
to
economic
issues
the
Government has, while taking a decision,
right to "trial and error" as long as both
trial and error are bona fide and within
the limits of the authority. For testing the
correctness of a policy, the appropriate
forum is Parliament and not the courts.

170. Normally, there is always a
presumption
that
the
Governmental
action is reasonable and in public interest
and it is for the party challenging its
validity to show that it is wanting in
reasonableness or is not informed with
public interest. This burden is a heavy
one and it has to be discharged to the
satisfaction of the court by proper and
adequate material. The court cannot
lightly assume that the action taken by
the Government is unreasonable or
against public interest because there are
large number of considerations, which
necessarily weigh with the Government
in taking an action.

The petitioner has pretended to act
in the name of pro bono publico, though
he had no interest of the public or even
of his own to protect. Allegations made
in the Writ Petition are baseless and
unfounded. They are motivated for
oblique considerations. Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Ashok Kumar
Pandey Vs. State of W.B., (2004) 3 SCC
349, was pleased to hold as under:-

"14. The Court has to be satisfied
about (a) the credentials of the applicant;
(b) the prima facie correctness or nature
of information given by him; (c) the
information
being
not
vague
and
indefinite. The information should show
gravity and seriousness involved. Court
has to strike balance between two
conflicting interests; (i) nobody should
be allowed to indulge in wild and
reckless allegations besmirching the
character of others; and (ii) avoidance of
public mischief and to avoid mischievous
petitions seeking to assail, for oblique
motives, justifiable executive actions. In
such case, however, the Court cannot
afford to be liberal. It has to be
extremely careful to see that under the
guise of redressing a public grievance, it
does not encroach upon the sphere
reserved by the Constitution to the
Executive and the Legislature. The Court
has to act ruthlessly while dealing with
imposters
and
busy
bodies
or
meddlesome interlopers impersonating as
2 All] Ajai Kumar Singh V State of U.P and others
625
public-spirited
holy
men.
They
masquerade as crusaders of justice. They
pretend to act in the name of Pro Bono
Publico, though they have no interest of
the public or even of their own to
protect.

34. Unless an aggrieved party is
under some disability recognized by law,
it would be unsafe and hazardous to
allow any third party be a member of the
Bar to question the decision against third
parties."

Further in the case of Dattaraj
Nathuji
Thaware
Vs.
State
of
Maharashtra, 2005(1) SCC 590 at para
12, Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased
to observe as under:-

"12. ........The attractive brand name
of public interest litigation should not be
used for suspicious products of mischief.
It should be aimed at redressal of
genuine public wrong or public injury
and not publicity oriented or founded on
personal vendetta. As indicated above,
Court must be careful to see that a body
of persons or member of public, who
approaches the court is acting bona fide
and not for personal gain or private
motive or political motivation or other
oblique considerations. The Court must
not allow its process to be abused for
oblique
considerations
by
masked
phantoms who monitor at times from
behind. Some persons with vested
interest indulge in the pastime of
meddling with judicial process either by
force of habit or from improper motives,
and try to bargain for a good deal as well
to enrich themselves. Often they are
actuated by a desire to win notoriety or
cheap popularity. The petitions of such
busy bodies deserve to be thrown out by
rejection at the threshold, and in
appropriate cases with exemplary costs."

It is further contended that Hon'ble
Supreme Court vide its judgment and
Order dated 18.01.2010 in Civil Appeal
No. 1134-1135 of 2002, State of
Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal
& ors reported in 2010 AIR SCW 1029
considered the evolution of the Public
Interest Litigation in India and expressed
its concern regarding the abuse of the
process of Courts through PIL. Being
concerned with the abuse the Hon'ble
Supreme Court issued directions to
preserve the purity and sanctity of PIL as
under:-

"198. In order to preserve the purity
and sanctity of the PIL, it has become
imperative
to
issue
the
following
directions:

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

(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.
626 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010

(3) The courts should prima facie
verify the credentials of the petitioner
before entertaining a P.I.L.

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

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

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

(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.

(8) The court 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
considerations.

199. Copies of this judgment be sent
to the Registrar Generals of all the High
Courts within one week."

B- The writ petition involving the
question of settlement of Commercial
Plots can not be termed to be a Public
Interest Litigation and when it is not a
Public
Interest
Litigation
than
the
petitioner can not be said to be aggrieved
person.

Thus, in this writ petition according
to L.D.A. the issue involved in the
present case hinges around the settlement
of
the
Commercial
Plots.
The
commercial plots had been sold through
open auction. As is evident from
paragraph 19 of the writ petition, no
cause of action has accrued to the
petitioner as certain bidders, who could
not be successful in the tender have
shifted their grievance on the petitioner.
Thus, it is a proxy petition. Further more
it is submitted that Courts of law can not
examine the wisdom of the authorities so
far as prescribing certain conditions in
the settlement of the Commercial Plots.
The conditions are put to ensure the
achievement of the object and therefore,
the solvency criteria and prescription of
earnest money were put in the tender
notice so that the capable bidders may
participate in the auction. This was done
with a view to ensure hundred percent
achievement of the development work
for which the plots in question were sold.
By leveling bald allegations without
substantiating the same, the petitioner
has abused the process of the Court.
There was no occasion to him to file a
Public Interest Litigation. He is not an
aggrieved person, therefore, the writ
petition is not maintainable.

D- The writ petition is liable to be
dismissed on the ground of non-joinder
of necessary party.

In respect of this issue the submission is
that after finalization of the tender
process third party rights have been
created and thus whosoever has been
alloted the plots in question has become
necessary and proper party but the
petitioner has not impleaded as any of
2 All] Ajai Kumar Singh V State of U.P and others
627
the successful party in this writ petition.
On this score alone writ petition deserves
to be dismissed.

E- The conduct of the petitioner
during the proceedings of the instant writ
petition, as is evident from the order
sheet, has made him liable to pay
exemplary cost by filing a malicious
petitions and for abusing the process of
the Court.

The
order
sheet
itself
throws
sufficient light on the conduct of the
petitioner after filing of the writ petition
on one pretext or the other, the petitioner
or
his
counsel
sought
repeated
adjournment. Such conduct needs to be
deprecated by this Hon'ble Court as
firstly the petitioner though claims
himself to be a public spirited person
fighting for the public cause has sought
repeated adjournments and secondly he
being a practicing lawyer has committed
misconduct by using the instant writ
petition to be a tool to abuse the process
of the Court. This act of the petitioner
has made him liable to pay heavy cost.

F- On merits the petitioner has
failed to substantiate the allegations
levelled by him.

The submission of the Lucknow
Development Authority is that the
commercial plots have been settled in a
just and fair manner and as per the
prescribed norms and the petition lacks
merits and is liable to be dismissed.

16. We agree with the contention of
the Lucknow Development Authority,
yet another aspects have also to be seen.

17. We find that the instant petition
as ''Public Interest Litigation' is not
maintainable
as
per
norms
and
parameters set for maintaining a ''Public
Interest
Litigation'
by
the
Hon'ble
Supreme Court.

18. The petitioner does not have
locus to file the same even as a Public
Interest Litigation for the following
reasons:-

1.While making exception to the
general law of locus standi in a Public
Interest Litigation, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has laid down certain norms when
such a petition can be entertained
without the petitioner being personally
affected
and
to
what
limit
can
requirement of locus be expanded and
has also mandated that when it should
not be maintainable.

2. Public Interest Litigation can only
be filed for espousing the cause of others
when and only when the persons
aggrieved are unable to approach the
Court directly by reasons of object
poverty or lack of means or being
socially disadvantaged and backward.
Thus those who are unable to knock the
door of the Court themselves for lack of
sources and means can file Public
Interest Litigation, but in this case the
aggrieved person i.e. the rival candidates
and their respective political parties as
well as the electors of Raebareli, do not
fall within the above ambit.

In view of the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Gauruvayoor
Devaswom Managing Committee and
another Vs. C.K. Rajan and others,
(2003) 7 SCC, 546, the petition as Public
Interest Litigation is not maintainable.
The relevant paragraphs 41,46,50,61 and
67 are quoted as below:-
628 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010

41. The courts exercising their
power of judicial review found to their
dismay that poorest of the poor, the
depraved (sic), the illiterate, the urban
and rural unorganized labour sector,
women, children, those handicapped by
"ignorance, indigence and illiteracy" and
other downtrodden persons have either
no access to justice or had been denied
justice. A new branch of proceedings
known as "social action litigation" or
"public interest litigation" was evolved
with a view to render complete justice to
the aforementioned classes of persons. It
expanded its wings in course of time.
The courts in pro bono publico granted
relief to inmates of prisons, provided
legal
aid,
directed
speedy
trials,
maintenance of human dignity and
covered
several
other
areas.
Representative actions, pro bono publico
and test litigations were entertained in
keeping with the current accent on
justice to the common man and a
necessary disincentive to those who wish
to bypass real issues on merits by suspect
reliance
on
peripheral
procedural
shortcomings. (see Mumbai Kamgar
Sabha V. Abdulbhai Faizullabhai, (1976)
3 SCC 832.)

46. But with the passage of time,
things started taking different shapes.
The process was sometimes abused.
Proceedings were initiated in the name of
public interest litigation for ventilating
private disputes. Some petitions were
publicity-oriented.

50. The principles evolved by this
Court in this behalf may be suitably
summarized as under:

(i) The Court in exercise of powers
under Article 32 and Article 226 of the
Constitution of India can entertain a
petition filed by any interested person in
the welfare of the people who is in a
disadvantaged position and, thus, not in a
position to knock the doors of the Court.
The Court is constitutionally bound to
protect the fundamental rights of such
disadvantaged people so as to direct the
State to fulfil its constitutional promises.
(See S.P.Gupta V. Union of India, 1981
Supp SCC 87, People's Union for
Democratic Rights V. Union of India,
(1982) 2 SCC 494, Bandhua Mukti
Morcha V. Union of India and Janata Dal
V. H.S.Chowdhary, (1992) 4 SCC 305.)

(ii) Issues of public importance,
enforcement of fundamental rights of a
large number of the public vis-à-vis the
constitutional duties and functions of the
State, if raised, the Court treats a letter or
a telegram as a public interest litigation
upon relaxing procedural laws as also the
law relating to pleadings. (See Charles
Sobraj V. Supdt., Central Jail, 1978, 4
SCC 104 and Hussainara Khatoon (I) V.
Home Secy., State of Bihar, 1980, 1 SCC
81.)

(iii) Whenever injustice is meted out
to a large number of people, the Court
will not hesitate in stepping in. Articles
14 and 21 of the Constitution of India as
well as the International Conventions on
Human Rights provide for reasonable
and fair trial.

In Maneka Sanjay Gandhi V. Rani
Jethmalani, 1979, 4 SCC 167 it was held:
(SCC p.169, para 2)

"2. Assurance of a fair trial is the
first imperative of the dispensation of
2 All] Ajai Kumar Singh V State of U.P and others
629
justice and the central criterion for the
court to consider when a motion for
transfer
is
made
is
not
the
hypersensitivity or relative convenience
of a party or easy availability of legal
services
or
like
mini-grievances.
Something
more
substantial,
more
compelling, more imperiling, from the
point of view of public justice and its
attendant environment, is necessitous if
the court is to exercise its power of
transfer. This is the cardinal principle
although the circumstances may be
myriad and vary from case to case. We
have to test the petitioner's grounds on
this touchstone bearing in mind the rule
that normally the complainant has the
right to choose any court having
jurisdiction and the accused cannot
dictate where the case against him should
be tried. Even so, the process of justice
should not harass the parties and from
that angle the court may weigh the
circumstances."
(See also Dwarka Prasad Agarwal V.
AB.D.Agarwal, (2003) 6 SCC 230)

(iv) The common rule of locus
standi is relaxed so as to enable the Court
to look into the grievances complained
on behalf of the poor, the depraved (sic),
the illiterate and the disabled who cannot
vindicate the legal wrong or legal injury
caused to them for any violation of any
constitutional
or
legal
right.
[see
Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union (Regd.)
V. Union of India, 198, 1 SCC 568, S.P.
Gupta, People's Union for Democratic
Rights, D.C.Wadhwa(Dr) V. State of
Bihar, 1987, 1 SCC 378 and BALCO
Employees' Union (Regd.) V. Union of
India, (2002) 2 SCC 333].

(v) When the Court is prima facie
satisfied
aqbout
variation
of
any
constitutional right of a group of people
belonging to the disadvantaged category,
it may not allow the State or the
Government from raising the question as
to the maintainability of the petition.
(See Bandhua Mukti Morcha).