# Ajay Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 227
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-11-26
- **Case number:** P.I.L. Civil No. 27598 of 2021
- **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha, Vivek Varma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ajay-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46491
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

(A) Civil Law - Public interest litigation - Public
interest litigation is not a pill or panacea for all
wrongs - It is essentially meant to protect
basic
human
rights
of
the
weak
and
disadvantaged - The Uttar Pradesh Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section
122-B - Allahabad High Court Rules - Chapter
XXII Rule 1(3-A) - Disclosure of credentials and
the public purpose sought to be espoused are
also essential elements to be stated in
initiating proceedings in public interest - Court
must maintain social balance by interfering for
the sake of justice and refuse to entertain
where it is against the social justice and public
good.(Para - 9,10,17)

Instant Public Interest Litigation - claim - private
respondent no.7, in connivance with revenue officials
- unauthorizedly occupied large land of State -
recorded in old revenue record as State land in the
name of ''Registry Aspatal' and ''Kanzi House', -
petitioner having criminal history as twenty-nine
criminal cases in heinous offences - no disclosure of
credentials.

HELD:- The petitioner is not a person, who has any
credentials to move in Public Interest. Simply on the
averment/submission that petitioner is a person
involved in social work without disclosing his
credentials and in the absence of the fact that the
petition has been preferred in the interest of justice
for large number of downtrodden persons who are
unable to approach the Courts of Law, the petitioner
is not entitled to maintain this petition in public
interest that too in a matter which does not involve
basic human rights. (Para - 26)

Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,683 of 41,038. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39683 for what follows._

11 All. Ajay Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
227
execution is barred by limitation or not. It is for
the Executing Court to examine this question,
uninfluenced by anything said in this order on
that count.

11. This petition is disposed of in terms of
the orders aforesaid.
----------
(2021)11ILR A227
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.11.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

P.I.L. Civil No. 27598 of 2021

Ajay Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Vinod Kumar Singh, Anu Pratap Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Satish Chandra Kashish

(A) Civil Law - Public interest litigation - Public
interest litigation is not a pill or panacea for all
wrongs - It is essentially meant to protect
basic
human
rights
of
the
weak
and
disadvantaged - The Uttar Pradesh Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section
122-B - Allahabad High Court Rules - Chapter
XXII Rule 1(3-A) - Disclosure of credentials and
the public purpose sought to be espoused are
also essential elements to be stated in
initiating proceedings in public interest - Court
must maintain social balance by interfering for
the sake of justice and refuse to entertain
where it is against the social justice and public
good.(Para - 9,10,17)

Instant Public Interest Litigation - claim - private
respondent no.7, in connivance with revenue officials
- unauthorizedly occupied large land of State -
recorded in old revenue record as State land in the
name of ''Registry Aspatal' and ''Kanzi House', -
petitioner having criminal history as twenty-nine
criminal cases in heinous offences - no disclosure of
credentials.

HELD:- The petitioner is not a person, who has any
credentials to move in Public Interest. Simply on the
averment/submission that petitioner is a person
involved in social work without disclosing his
credentials and in the absence of the fact that the
petition has been preferred in the interest of justice
for large number of downtrodden persons who are
unable to approach the Courts of Law, the petitioner
is not entitled to maintain this petition in public
interest that too in a matter which does not involve
basic human rights. (Para - 26)

Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Gurpal Singh Vs St. of Punj., JT 2005 (5) SC 389

2. Kushum Lata Vs U.O.I. & ors., (2006) 6 SCC 180

3. St.of Uttaranchal Vs Balwant Singh Chaufal & ors.
,(2010) 3 SCC 402

4. Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti Vs St.of Raj. &
ors., (2014) 5 SCC 530

5. Tehseen Poonawalla Vs U.O.I. & anr., (2018) 6
SCC 72

6. Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti v. St. of Raj. &
ors., (2014) 5 SCC 530

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.)

(1) Vakalatnama filed on behalf of
respondent no.7 by Shri Hemant Kumar Misra,
Advocate, is taken on record.

(2) The petitioner, Ajay Singh, in the
present
Public
Interest
Litigation
seeks
following reliefs :-

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of Mandamus commanding the
opposite party no.1 to constitute a State Level
228 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Committee for conducting a deep enquiry with
regard to manipulation, and forgery in revenue
records, and nexus of revenue officials with
opposite party no.7 resulting into unauthorized
occupation of large area of State land over
Khasra Plot Nos. 471, 472, 473 and 474 situated
in Tehsil Mankapur, District-Gonda which are
recorded in the old revenue record as State land
in the name of 'Registry Aspatal, and kanzi
house'.

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of Mandamus commanding the
opposite parties 2, 4 and 5 to issue a public
notice in widely circulated newspapers notifying
therein about land bearing Khasra Plot Nos.
471, 472, 473, 474 and 475 situated at
Mankapur Town, Tehsil Mankapur, DistrictGonda to be State land/public utility land

iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of Mandamus commanding the
opposite party no. 2 to take immediate action to
dispossess unauthorized occupant from the State
land as requested by opposite party no. 6 by
letter dated 01.08.2019 as contained in
Annexure no.5 to this petition."

(3) It appears that the petitioner, in the
instant Public Interest Litigation, is claiming that
private respondent no.7, in connivance with
revenue officials, has unauthorizedly occupied
large land of the State, bearing Gata Nos. 471,
472, 473 and 474 situate in Tehsil Mankapur,
District Gonda, which are recorded in the old
revenue record as State land in the name of
''Registry Aspatal' and ''Kanzi House', hence
respondent no.2 may be directed to take
immediate action to dispossess unauthorized
occupant from the land in question.

(4) Learned Counsel for the respondent no.7,
on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner is
having criminal history as twenty-nine criminal
cases in heinous offences have been registered
against him. In support of his submission, he has
filed a list of pending criminal cases against the
petitioner, which are reproduced as under :-

"(1) Case Crime No. 140 of 2001,
under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station
Mankapur, District Gonda.

(2) Case Crime No. 112 of 2004, under
Section
110
G
Cr.P.C.,
Police
Station
Mankapur, District Gonda.

(3) Case Crime No. 262 of 2005, under
Section 3(1) of the U.P. Goondas Act, Police
Station Mankapur, District Gonda.

(4) Case Crime No. 221 of 2005, under
Sections 143, 336, 352, 188 IPC, Police Station
Mankapur, District Gonda.

(5) Case Crime No. 194 of 2006, under
Sections 4/10 of Forest Act, Police Station
Mankapur, District Gonda.

(6) Case Crime No. 224 of 2001, under
Section 406 IPC, Police Station Mankapur,
District Gonda.

(7) Case Crime No. 242 of 2007, under
Section 3(1) of the U.P. Goondas Act, Police
Station Mankapur, District Gonda.

(8) Case Crime No.208 of 2008, under
Section 420 IPC, Sections 4/10 Forest Act and
Sections 3/28 of U.P. Transit of Timber and
other
under
Forest
Act,
Police
Station
Mankapur, District Gonda.

(9) Case Crime No. 207 of 2008, under
Sections 379 and 411 IPC, Sections 4/10 Forest
Act, Police Station Mankapur, District Gonda.

(10) Case Crime No. 11 of 2009, under
Sections 147, 323, 352 IPC, Police Station
Mankapur, District Gonda.

(11) Case Crime No. 53 of 2009, under
Sections 395, 447, 506 IPC, Police Station
Mankapur, District Gonda.

(12) Case Crime No. 78 of 2009, under
Section
110
G
Cr.P.C.,
Police
Station
Mankapur, District Gonda.

(13) Case Crime No. 221 of 2009,
under Sections 4/10 of Forest Act, Police Station
Mankapur, District Gonda.
11 All. Ajay Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
229

(14) Case Crime No. 542 of 2009,
under Sections 4/10 of Forest Act, Police Station
Mankapur, District Gonda.

(15) Case Crime No. 192 of 2011,
under Sections 4/10 of Forest Act, Police Station
Mankapur, District Gonda.

(16) Case Crime No. 395 of 2015,
under Section 110 G of Cr.P.C., Police Station
Mankapur, District Gonda.

(17) Case Crime No. 90 of 2017, under
Sections 147, 148, 323, 506, 325, 354 kha, 452
IPC, Police Station Mankapur, District Gonda.

(18) Case Crime No. 314 of 2018,
under Sections 352, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station
Mankapur, District Gonda.

(19) Case Crime No. 205 of 2020, under
Sections 379, 411 IPC and Sections 4/10 Forest
Act, Police Station Mankapur, District Gonda.

(20) NCR 243 of 2005, under Sections
323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Mankapur,
District Gonda.

(21) NCR 107 of 2007, under Sections
323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Mankapur,
District Gonda.

(22) Range Case No.26 of 2006-2007,
under Section Van Vibhag Tikri Range Mankapur
Gonda fine Rs.6000/-

(23) Range Case No.34 of 2008-2009,
under Section 4/10 Van Vibhag Tikri Range
Mankapur Gonda.

(24) Range Case No.01 of 2010-2011,
under Section 4/10 Van Vibhag Tikri Range
Mankapur Gonda.

(25) Range Case No.29 of 2013-2014,
under Section 33 Van Vibhag Tikri Range
Mankapur Gonda fine Rs.14,000/-.

(26) Range Case No.40 of 2015-2016,
under Section 4/10 and 3/28 Van Vibhag Tikri
Range Mankapur Gonda.

(27) Range Case No.42 of 2016-2017,
under Section 4/10 Van Vibhag Tikri Range
Mankapur Gonda fine Rs. 4,000/-.

(28) Case Crime No.23 of 1996 under
Sections 379/411 IPC and Section 26 of Forest
Act, Police Station Baundi, Janpad Bahraich.

(29) Case Crime No.3 of 1997 under
Sections 342/427 IPC, Police Station Baundi,
Janpad Bahraich."

(5) Learned Counsel for the respondent
no.7 has further pointed out that in respect of
Gata No. 470, 473, 536, 437, 544, 545, 546, 577,
576Ga, 580 ka, 580 Kha situated at Nagar
Panchayat Mankapur, District Gonda, one Satish
Kumar has approached this Court by filing
Public Interest Litigation No. 31154 of 2019,
seeking therein to issue a writ of mandamus
directing the State to conduct a detailed inquiry
into the illegal and unlawful act of grabbing
government land situated over the aforesaid
land. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide
order 16.11.2019, dismissed the aforesaid Public
Interest Litigation, against which, SLP (Civil)
No. 014986 of 2021 has been preferred by said
Satish Kumar and the same is still pending
before the Apex Court. He argued that the Apex
Court, vide order dated 22.10.2021, has fixed the
aforesaid SLP for 08.02.2022.

(6) Learned Counsel for the respondent
no.7 has drawn our attention to the proceeding
initiated under Section 122-B of the Uttar
Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "Act,
1950") by the Gaon Sabha against the instant
writ petitioner (Ajay Singh) and has submitted
that the writ petitioner himself is a land grabber.
In respect of Gata No. 1427 M/area 0.004
hectare situate at Village Bhitauri, Pargana &
Tehsil Mankapur, District Gonda, the Gaon
Sabha
has
approached
the
Assistant
Collector/Tehsildar (Judicial), Mankapur by
filing a case, bearing No. 276/2013-14 and the
Assistant Collector/Tehsildar, Mankapur, vide
order dated 25.04.2014, directed to dispossess
the writ petitioner from land, bearing no.
1427/0.053 hectare and further directed to
recover the amount of Rs.1,80,000/- towards
compensation and Rs.7/- towards execution cost
under Sections 49 (b) and 49 (c) of the Act, 1950
230 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
from the writ petitioner. Against the aforesaid
order dated 25.04.2014, writ petitioner has filed
revision, bearing no. 1257 of 2014, before the
Collector, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda, who, vide
order dated 09.09.2019, dismissed the aforesaid
revision. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petitioner has
approached this Court by filing writ petition no.
27138 (M/S) of 2019 : Ajay Singh Vs. State of U.P.
and others, in which, learned Single Judge, vide
interim order dated 27.09.2019, directed the parties
to maintain status quo as existed on the date of
passing of the order. It was also observed by the
learned Single Judge that in the event of deciding
the writ petition against the writ petitioner, penalty
would be imposed upon him along with interest @
12% payable to the Gaon Sabha for encroaching
upon the land of the Gaon Sabha. He also argued
that in respect of Gata No. 471, Zila Panchayat
Gonda through its Chairman has filed Second
Appeal No. 89 of 2020 and the same is pending
before this Court. In these backgrounds, his
submission is that the instant petition though styled
as a PIL is nothing but an attempt to misguide the
Court and it has been filed with an oblique motive.
There was no public interest involved and in fact
when the writ petitioner is having criminal history
and part of the dispute raised by the writ petitioner
is pending adjudication before the Courts as well
as Apex Court, hence the instant public interest
petition could not have been maintained and the
same is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs.

(7) In response, learned Counsel for the
writ petitioner does not dispute the criminal
antecedents against the writ petitioner as pointed
out by the learned Counsel for the respondent
no.7 but he contended that in some of the cases,
trial is still pending. He further argued that mere
involvment of the writ petitioner in criminal
cases does not debar the writ petitioner to file
the public interest litigation.

(8) We have minutely examined the
submissions advanced by the learned Counsel
for the parties and gone through the record.

(9) The petitioner has filed this petition as
Pro Bono Publico, therefore, this Court is
required to first satisfy itself regarding the
credentials of the petitioner and secondly, the
prima facie correctness of the information given
by him because after all the name of public
interest litigation cannot be used for suspicious
products of mischief. It has to be aimed at
redressal of genuine public wrong or public
injury and not publicity oriented or founded on
personal vendetta or private motive. The process
of the Court cannot be abused for oblique
considerations by masked phantoms who
monitor at times from behind. The common rule
of locus standi in such cases is relaxed so as to
enable the Court to look into the grievances
complained of on behalf of the poor, deprive,
deprivation, illiterate and the disabled and who
cannot vindicate the legal wrong or legal injury
caused to them for any violation of any
constitutional or legal right. But, then while
protecting the rights of the people from being
violated in any manner, utmost care has to be
taken that the Court does not transgress its
jurisdiction nor does it entertain petitions which
are motivated. After all, public interest litigation
is not a pill or panacea for all wrongs. It is
essentially meant to protect basic human rights
of the weak and disadvantaged.

(10) It is true that Public Interest Litigation
is a weapon which has to be used with great care
and circumspection and the Judiciary has to be
extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful
veil of public interest an ugly private malice,
vested interest and/or public interest seeking is
not lurking. It is to be used as an effective
weapon in the armoury of law for delivering
justice to the citizens. Courts must do justice by
promotion of good faith and prevent law from
crafty invasions. It is for this reason that the
Court
must
maintain
social
balance
by
interfering for the sake of justice and refuse to
entertain where it is against the social justice and
public good.
11 All. Ajay Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
231

(11) In Gurpal Singh vs. State of Punjab,
JT 2005 (5) SC 389, the Apex Court has held as
under :-

"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 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.

Courts must do justice by promotion
of good faith, and prevent law from crafty
invasions. Courts must maintain the social
balance by interfering where necessary for the
sake of justice and refuse to interfere where it is
against the social interest and public good. (See
State of Maharashtra vs. Prabhu, (1994 (2) SCC
481), and Andhra Pradesh State Financial
Corporation vs. M/s GAR Re-Rolling Mills and
Anr., (AIR 1994 SC 2151). No litigant has a
right to unlimited draught on the Court time and
public money in order to get his affairs settled in
the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice
should not be misused as a licence to file
misconceived and frivolous petitions. (See Dr.
B.K. Subbarao vs. Mr. K. Parasaran, (1996 (7)
JT 265). Today people rush to Courts to file
cases in profusion under this attractive name of
public interest. They must inspire confidence in
Courts and among the public.

(12) In Kushum Lata versus Union of
India and others : (2006) 6 SCC 180, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:

"5. When there is material to show that
a petition styled as a public interest litigation is
nothing but a camouflage to foster personal
disputes, said petition is to be thrown out.
Before we grapple with the issue involved in the
present case, we feel it necessary to consider the
issue regarding public interest aspect. Public
Interest Litigation which has now come to
occupy an important field in the administration
of law should not be "publicity interest
litigation" or "private interest litigation" or
"politics interest litigation" or the latest trend
"paise income litigation". The High Court has
found that the case at hand belongs to the second
category. If not properly regulated and abuse
averted, it becomes also a tool in unscrupulous
hands to release vendetta and wreck vengeance,
as well. There must be real and genuine public
interest involved in the litigation and not merely
an adventure of knight errant borne out of
wishful thinking. It cannot also be invoked by a
person or a body of persons to further his or
their personal causes or satisfy his or their
personal grudge and enmity. The Courts of
justice should not be allowed to be polluted by
unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the
extraordinary jurisdiction. A person acting bona
fide and having sufficient interest in the
proceeding of public interest litigation will alone
have a locus standi and can approach the Court
to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and
genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but
not for personal gain or private profit or political
motive or any oblique consideration. These
aspects were highlighted by this Court in The
Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary (1992 (4) SCC
232 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
305) and Kazi Lhendup Dorji vs. Central Bureau
of Investigation, (1994 Supp (2) SCC 116). A
writ petitioner who comes to the Court for relief
in public interest must come not only with clean
hands like any other writ petitioner but also with
a clean heart, clean mind and clean objective.
(See Ramjas Foundation vs. Union of India,
(AIR 1993 SC 852) and K.R. Srinivas v. R.M.
Premchand, (1994 (6) SCC 620)."

(13) The Apex Court in the case of State
of Uttaranchal versus Balwant Singh Chaufal
and Ors. : (2010) 3 SCC 402, in paragraphs
178, 179, 180 and 181, laid down the following
guidelines relating to Public Interest Litigation:

"178.We must abundantly make it
clear that we are not discouraging the Public
Interest Litigation in any manner, what we are
trying to curb is its misuse and abuse. According
to us, this is a very important branch and, in a
large number of PIL petitions, significant
directions have been given by the Courts for
improving ecology and environment, and the
directions helped in preservation of forests,
wildlife, marine life etc. etc. It is the bounden
duty and obligation of the Courts to encourage
genuine bonafide PIL petitions and pass
directions and orders in the public interest which
are in consonance with the Constitution and the
laws.

179. The Public Interest Litigation,
which has been in existence in our country for
more than four decades, has a glorious record.
This Court and the High Courts by their judicial
creativity and craftsmanship have passed a
number of directions in the larger public interest
in consonance with the inherent spirits of the
Constitution. The conditions of marginalized
and
vulnerable
section
of
society
have
significantly improved on account of Court's
directions in PIL.

180. In our considered view, now it
has become imperative to streamline the PIL.

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:

(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.

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

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

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

(6) The Courts 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.
11 All. Ajay Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
233

(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 considerations."

(14) In Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas
Samiti versus State of Rajasthan and others :
(2014) 5 SCC 530, the Apex Court has observed
as under :-

"49.The concept of public interest
litigation is a phenomenon which is evolved to
bring justice to the reach of people who are
handicapped by ignorance, indigence, illiteracy
and other downtrodden people. Through the
public interest litigation, the cause of several
people who are not able to approach the court is
espoused. In the guise of public interest
litigation, we are coming across several cases
where it is exploited for the benefit of certain
individuals. The courts have to be very cautious
and careful while entertaining public interest
litigation. The judiciary should deal with the
misuse of public interest litigation with iron
hand. If the public interest litigation is permitted
to be misused the very purpose for which it is
conceived, namely, to come to the rescue of the
poor and downtrodden will be defeated. The
courts should discourage the unjustified litigants
at the initial stage itself and the person who
misuses the forum should be made accountable
for it. In the realm of public interest litigation,
the courts while protecting the larger public
interest involved, should at the same time have
to look at the effective way in which the relief
can be granted to the people whose rights are
adversely affected or are at stake. When their
interest can be protected and the controversy or
the dispute can be adjudicated by a mechanism
created under the particular statute, the parties
should be relegated to the appropriate forum
instead of entertaining the writ petition filed as
public interest litigation."

(15) In Tehseen Poonawalla vs. Union of
India and another (2018) 6 SCC 72, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the
issue of object of a public interest litigation and
its misutilization by persons with personal
agenda observed as under:

"96. Public Interest Litigation has
developed as a powerful tool to espouse the
cause of the marginalised and oppressed. Indeed,
that was the foundation on which public interest
jurisdiction
was
judicially
recognised
in
situations such as those in Bandhua Mukti
Morcha v Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161.
Persons who were unable to seek access to the
judicial process by reason of their poverty,
ignorance or illiteracy are faced with a
deprivation of fundamental human rights.
Bonded labour and under trials (among others)
belong to that category. The hallmark of a public
interest petition is that a citizen may approach
the court to ventilate the grievance of a person or
class of persons who are unable to pursue their
rights. Public interest litigation has been
entertained by relaxing the rules of standing.
The essential aspect of the procedure is that the
person who moves the court has no personal
interest in the outcome of the proceedings apart
from a general standing as a citizen before the
court. This ensures the objectivity of those who
pursue
the
grievance
before
the
court.
Environmental jurisprudence has developed
around the rubric of public interest petitions.
Environmental concerns affect the present
generation and the future. Principles such as the
polluter pays and the public trust doctrine have
evolved during the adjudication of public
interest petitions. Over time, public interest
litigation has become a powerful instrument to
preserve the rule of law and to ensure the
accountability of and transparency within
structures
of
governance.
Public
interest
litigation is in that sense a valuable instrument
and jurisdictional tool to promote structural due
process.
234 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

97. Yet over time, it has been realised
that this jurisdiction is capable of being and has
been brazenly misutilised by persons with a
personal agenda. At one end of that spectrum are
those cases where public interest petitions are
motivated by a desire to seek publicity. At the
other end of the spectrum are petitions which
have been instituted at the behest of business or
political rivals to settle scores behind the facade
of a public interest litigation. The true face of
the litigant behind the façade is seldom
unravelled. These concerns are indeed reflected
in the judgment of this court in State of
Uttaranchal v Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010) 3
SCC 402. Underlining these concerns, this court
held thus: (SCC p.453, para 143).

"143. Unfortunately, of late, it has
been noticed that such an important jurisdiction
which has been carefully carved out, created and
nurtured with great care and caution by the
courts, is being blatantly abused by filing some
petitions with oblique motives. We think time
has come when genuine and bona fide public
interest litigation must be encouraged whereas
frivolous public interest litigation should be
discouraged. In our considered opinion, we have
to
protect
and
preserve
this
important
jurisdiction in the larger interest of the people of
this country but we must take effective steps to
prevent and cure its abuse on the basis of
monetary and nonmonetary directions by the
courts."

98. The misuse of public interest
litigation is a serious matter of concern for the
judicial process. Both this court and the High
Courts are flooded with litigation and are
burdened by arrears. Frivolous or motivated
petitions, ostensibly invoking the public interest
detract from the time and attention which courts
must devote to genuine causes. This court has a
long list of pending cases where the personal
liberty of citizens is involved. Those who await
trial or the resolution of appeals against orders
of conviction have a legitimate expectation of
early justice. It is a travesty of justice for the
resources of the legal system to be consumed by
an
avalanche
of
misdirected
petitions
purportedly filed in the public interest which,
upon due scrutiny, are found to promote a
personal, business or political agenda. This has
spawned an industry of vested interests in
litigation. There is a grave danger that if this
state of affairs is allowed to continue, it would
seriously denude the efficacy of the judicial
system by detracting from the ability of the court
to devote its time and resources to cases which
legitimately require attention. Worse still, such
petitions pose a grave danger to the credibility of
the judicial process. This has the propensity of
endangering the credibility of other institutions
and undermining public faith in democracy and
the rule of law. This will happen when the
agency of the court is utilised to settle extrajudicial scores. Business rivalries have to be
resolved in a competitive market for goods and
services. Political rivalries have to be resolved in
the great hall of democracy when the electorate
votes its representatives in and out of office.
Courts resolve disputes about legal rights and
entitlements. Courts protect the rule of law.
There is a danger that the judicial process will be
reduced to a charade, if disputes beyond the ken
of legal parameters occupy the judicial space."

(16) In compliance with the directions of
the Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal v.
Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra), the Allahabad
High Court Rules were also amended and SubRule (3-A) was added under Chapter XXII Rule
1 w.e.f. 1.5.2010. The aforesaid Rule reads as
under:-

"(3-A) In addition to satisfying the
requirements of the other rules in this chapter,
the petitioner seeking to file a Public Interest
Litigation, should precisely and specifically
state, in the affidavit to be sworn by him giving
his credentials, the public cause he is seeking to
espouse; that he has no personal or private
interest in the matter; that there is no
11 All. Ajay Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
235
authoritative pronouncement by the Supreme
Court or High Court on the question raised; and
that the result of the litigation will not lead to
any undue gain to himself or anyone associated
with him, or any undue loss to any person, body
of persons or the State."

(17) A simple reading of the aforesaid Rule
reveals that in addition to the other requirements
mentioned under Chapter for filing a writ
petition, the person filing the petition in Public
Interest should precisely and specifically, apart
from other things, state his credentials and the
public cause for which he is seeking to espouse.
Therefore, disclosure of credentials and the
public purpose sought to be espoused are also
essential elements to be stated in initiating
proceedings in public interest.

(18) Tested on the angle of the aforesaid
exposition of law, it would be noticed that in
paragraph-3 of the writ petition, the writ
petitioner has made his credential. Paragraph-3
of the writ petition is reproduced as under :-

"3. That the petitioner in compliance to
Chapter-XXII, Rule-1 (3-A) of the Allahabad
High Court Rules submits that the petitioner is a
local resident of the area and responsible citizen
of country and is always helpful and social by
nature and helps poor persons and children and
helps needy persons."

(19) It appears that the petitioner, in the
writ petition, except for mentioning that he is a
local resident of the area and responsible citizen
of Country and is always helpful and social by
nature and helps poor persons and children and
helps needy persons, has not stated anything
covering
any
of
the
above
essential
requirements. In short, he has not disclosed his
credentials.

(20) The dictionary meaning of the word
'credentials' is the qualities and the experience of
a person that make him suitable for doing a
particular job. The Oxford English-EnglishHindi
Dictionary,
2nd
Edition,
explains
credentials as the quality which makes a person
perfect for the job or a document that is a proof
that he has the training and education necessary
to prove that he is a person qualified for doing
the particular job.

(21) The petitioner herein claims to be a
Social Worker, but in order to substantiate the
nature of the social work he is doing or seeks to
do, he has not disclosed any experience that
makes him suitable or perfect for doing the said
job and no document in proof has been
furnished.

(22) Black's Law Dictionary, 10th edition,
defines 'credential' a document or other evidence
that proves one's authority or expertise; a
testimonial that a person is entitled to credit or to
the right to exercise official power.

(23) The petitioner, in the absence of any
documentary proof to establish his authority or
expertise in doing social work, does not have the
requisite credentials to initiate petition in Public
Interest.

(24) Considering the aforesaid definition(s)
of the term 'credential' and the law on
entertaining the PIL what we feel is that for
maintaining the PIL the petitioner in the writ
petition, in brief, should state, with proof, that
what he has done and what expertise he has on
the subject matter of PIL as also that what
exercise (sufficient) has been carried out by the
petitioner before the administration prior to
knocking the door of the Court and that what
injury would be caused to the downtrodden of
the society or public at large if cause under PIL
is not espoused by the Court.

(25) The petitioner in filing this petition in
Public Interest has not even disclosed that he is
236 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
filing
this
petition
on
behalf
of
such
disadvantageous persons or that injustice is
meted out to a large number of people and
therefore it has become necessary for him to
come forward on their behalf.

(26) In view of the aforesaid reasons and
the law as laid down by the Apex Court, the
petitioner is not a person, who has any
credentials to move in Public Interest. Simply on
the averment/submission that he is a person
involved in social work without disclosing his
credentials and in the absence of the fact that the
petition has been preferred in the interest of
justice for large number of downtrodden persons
who are unable to approach the Courts of Law,
the petitioner is not entitled to maintain this
petition in public interest that too in a matter
which does not involve basic human rights.

(27) Moreover, it also transpires that
twenty-nine criminal cases, as referred here-inabove, has been registered against the petitioner
for the heinous offences including Goondas Act
and this fact has not been mentioned in the writ
petition, rather in paragraph-3 of the memo of
the writ petition, the petitioner is stated on oath
that he is responsible citizen and social worker.
Thus, looking to the offences made in the
twenty-nine criminal cases, which have been
lodged against the petitioner, it cannot be said
that the petitioner is a responsible citizen.

(28) Here, it would be necessary to notice
that in a proceeding initiated under Section 122B of the Act, 1950, the Assistant Collector has
specifically observed that the writ petitioner has
illegally encroached the land of the Gaon Sabha
and as such, imposed penalty upon the
petitioner. Moreso, the Zila Panchayat Gonda
has filed second appeal no. 89 of 2020 in respect
of land, bearing No. 471, which the petitioner
herein claims to be encroached by the
respondent no.7, before this Court and the same
is pending. Furthermore, one Satish Kumar has
filed P.I.L. No. 31154 of 2019, seeking a writ of
mandamus directing the respondents no. 1 and 2
to conduct a detailed enquiry into the illegal and
unlawful act of grabbing government land
situated on Gata No. 470, 473, 536, 537, 544,
545, 546, 577, 576 ga, 580 ka, 580 kha situate at
Nagar Panchayat Mankapur, District Gonda. A
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order
dated 16.11.2019, dismissed the aforesaid public
interest litigation.

(29) During the course of the arguments,
learned Counsel for the petitioner have not
disputed the fact that the aforesaid proceedings
are not in the knowledge of the writ petitioner.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also
failed to show as to why he has not mentioned
the criminal antecedents lodged against the writ
petitioner, rather accepted the fact that twentynine criminal cases, as referred to hereinabove,
have been registered against the petitioner. This
itself shows the conduct of the writ petitioner
while filing the instant writ petition in the form
of Public Interest of Litigation.

(30) In Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas
Samiti v. State of Rajasthan and others :
(2014) 5 SCC 530, the Apex Court has
cautioned
about
frivolous
Public
Interest
Litigation in following words:-

"The
concept
of
Public
Interest
Litigation is a phenomenon which is evolved to
bring justice to the reach of people who are
handicapped by ignorance, indigence, illiteracy
and other down trodden people. Through the
Public Interest Litigation, the cause of several
people who are not able to approach the Court is
espoused. In the guise of Public Interest
Litigation, we are coming across several cases
where it is exploited for the benefit of certain
individuals. The Courts have to be very cautious
and careful while entertaining Public Interest
Litigation. The Judiciary should deal with the
misuse of Public Interest Litigation with iron
11 All. Manohar Lal Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
237
hand. If the Public Interest Litigation is
permitted to be misused the very purpose for
which it is conceived, namely to come to the
rescue of the poor and down trodden will be
defeated. The Courts should discourage the
unjustified litigants at the initial stage itself and
the person who misuses the forum should be
made accountable for it. In the realm of Public
Interest Litigation, the Courts while protecting
the larger public interest involved, should at the
same time have to look at the effective way in
which the relief can be granted to the people,
whose rights are adversely affected or at stake.
When their interest can be protected and the
controversy or the dispute can be adjudicated by
a mechanism created under a particular statute,
the parties should be relegated to the appropriate
forum, instead of entertaining the writ petition
filed as Public Interest Litigation."

(31) In view of aforesaid discussions, not
only there is no merit in this petition, but the
same is also mischievous and has only resulted
in wastage of precious Court's time, which could
have been better utilized for disposal of the
cases for genuine litigant(s).

(32) Accordingly, the instant petition is
dismissed with costs of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees
Five Lacs) to be paid/deposited by the petitioner
before the Senior Registrar of this Court within
three months, failing which, the learned Senior
Registrar of this Court shall initiate proceedings
for recovery of the aforesaid costs, in
accordance with law, from the petitioner as
arrears of land revenue. On receipt of the
aforesaid cost/amount, the Senior Registrar of
this Court shall transmit it to the account of
Uttar Pradesh Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila
Samman Kosh, which has been notified as
Juvenile Justice Fund w.e.f.