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

- **Citation:** (2023) 8 ILRA 853
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-22
- **Case number:** PIL No. 1843 of 2023
- **Bench:** Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bhoopendra-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50613
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Civil Law - Public Interest Litigation -
Maintainability - Chapter XXII - Rule 1(3A) of the Allahabad High Court Rules,
1952 - Petitioner failed to disclose specific
and precise credentials as mandated - No
prima facie public cause established -
Mere assertion of being a resident and
Gaon Sabha member insufficient - Petition
filed for personal or oblique motive -
Frivolous PIL discouraged in view of
Supreme Court precedents - Petition
dismissed.

Held - The petitioner, while seeking relief
in a PIL regarding installation and location
of a borewell in village Garhi Madusua,
failed to disclose his credentials in the
specific and precise manner as required
under Rule 1(3-A) of Chapter XXII of the
High Court Rules. No public interest or
violation of public rights was shown. The
averments
were
vague
and
lacked
supporting documents. In absence of prima
facie case and proper disclosures, the
petition was not maintainable as a PIL.
Dismissed
with
liberty
to
approach
concerned authorities.

PIL dismissed.

Case law discussed:

## Text

8 All. Bhoopendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
853
of granting default bail did not arise even if
cognizance had not been taken.

21. Therefore, the order of judicial
remand passed on 26.06.2023 cannot be
said to be illegal in any manner despite
mention of section 309 Cr.P.C. in the order
of remand dated 26.06.2023, in view of the
pronouncement of the Supreme Court in
Pradeep Ram (Supra). Since the petitioners
have been remanded to judicial custody by
a legal order, such detention is not illegal.
Therefore, no habeas corpus will lie. The
petition, insofar as it claims issuance of a
writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable

22. Since a charge-sheet had been
filed against the petitioners on 22.06.2023,
they were not entitled to default bail. Their
judicial remand by the impugned order
dated 26.06.2023 is fully justified. The
order, therefore, is not liable to be quashed.

23. Since, both the reliefs claimed in
the writ petition cannot be granted for the
reasons given above, this writ petition fails
and is dismissed.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 853
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

PIL No. 1843 of 2023

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rajeev Kumar, Sri Prashant Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Krishna Kant Singh, Sri Pradeep
Kumar Upadhyay

Civil Law - Public Interest Litigation -
Maintainability - Chapter XXII - Rule 1(3A) of the Allahabad High Court Rules,
1952 - Petitioner failed to disclose specific
and precise credentials as mandated - No
prima facie public cause established -
Mere assertion of being a resident and
Gaon Sabha member insufficient - Petition
filed for personal or oblique motive -
Frivolous PIL discouraged in view of
Supreme Court precedents - Petition
dismissed.

Held - The petitioner, while seeking relief
in a PIL regarding installation and location
of a borewell in village Garhi Madusua,
failed to disclose his credentials in the
specific and precise manner as required
under Rule 1(3-A) of Chapter XXII of the
High Court Rules. No public interest or
violation of public rights was shown. The
averments
were
vague
and
lacked
supporting documents. In absence of prima
facie case and proper disclosures, the
petition was not maintainable as a PIL.
Dismissed
with
liberty
to
approach
concerned authorities.

PIL dismissed.

Case law discussed:

1. St. of Uttranchal Vs Balwant Singh Chaufal,
2010 AIR SCW 1029

2. Pankaj Srivastava Vs High Court of Judicature
at Allahabad, (2014) 3 UPLBEC 1832

3. Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs St. of W.B., AIR
2004 SC 280

4. Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware Vs St. of Mah.,
(2005) 1 SCC 590

5. M/s Holicow Pictures (P) Ltd. Vs Prem
Chandra Mishra, (2007) 14 SCC 281

(Delivered by Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan
Rizvi, J.)
854 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. Heard Sri Rajeev Kumar, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri Dinesh
Kumar Verma, learned Standing Counsel
for respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Sri Krishna
Kant Singh, learned counsel for the Land
Management Committee-respondent no.6.

2. The present writ petition has been
filed seeking the following relief:

"(i) To issue an order or direction
commanding
the
respondent
authorities
specially respondent no.3 to direct the
respondent
authorities
to
complete
the
installation of incomplete bore well and to
construct the over head water tank also upon
the Gata No. 728 area 0.144 hectare in Mauja
Garhi Madusua, Pargana Patiyali, Tehsil
Aliganj, District Etah according to the proposal
dated 26.06.2023 passed by the authority.

(ii) To issue an order or direction
commanding the respondent authority to
restrain from shifting the bore well from Gata
No. 728 area 0.144 hectare to Gata No. 581
area 0.150 hectare.

(iii) To issue any other writ, order or
direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper under the circumstances of the
present case.

(iv) Award the cost of the petition to the
petitioner."

3. At the very outset, learned Standing
Counsel has raised a preliminary objection
regarding the maintainability of the present
Public Interest Litigation as the petitioner
has not disclosed his credentials and other
details that are required under Sub-Rule (3A) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the
Allahabad High Court Rules (Rules of
Court, 1952), which has been amended in
the light of judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in State of Uttranchal
versus Balwant Singh Chaufal & others
reported in 2010 AIR SCW 1029.

4. Sri Krishna Kant Singh, learned
Counsel
for
the
Land
Management
Committee-Respondent No. 6 submits that
the present petition by way of Public
Interest Litigation has been filed by the
petitioner with oblique motive and with
concealment of material facts. He further
submits that the petitioner has not annexed
the resolution dated 26.06.2023 said to
have been passed by the Gaon Sabha on the
basis of which he is claiming the relief in
the present petition.

5. On the question of maintainability
of the present petition for want of nondisclosure of the credentials as required
under Sub-Rule (3-A), Rule 1 of Chapter
XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, it
would be pertinent to note that the
aforesaid Rule has been framed in exercise
of the Rule making power of the High
Court, which is of quasi-legislative nature
and
has
been
incorporated
as
an
amendment to Rule 1 of XXII with effect
from 01.05.2010 and the validity of the
same has been tested and upheld by the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Pankaj Srivastava versus High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad reported in
(2014) 3 UPLBEC 1832.

6. For ready reference, the said Rule
is reproduced 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 spouse; that
he has no personal or private interest in the
matter; that there is no authoritative
pronouncement by the Supreme Court or
High Court on the question raised; and that
8 All. Bhoopendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
855
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."

7. In the above-mentioned Rule, the
words 'should precisely and specifically
state' as has been envisaged, itself indicates
the importance and necessity of the
disclosure of the credentials by the
petitioner.
The
same
cannot
be
ignored/overlooked by the Courts before
entertaining a petition as Public Interest
Litigation. The said Rule requires a person
espousing a public cause, to file an
affidavit narrating his credentials in precise
and specific manner and also the public
cause which is sought to be espoused.

8. The requirement of disclosure of
credentials from the petitioner is indeed
necessary to bring on record the complete
background of the person who is coming
before the Court. This information helps to
establish the petitioner's credibility, locus
standi, and his genuineness. Providing
credentials also demonstrates that the
petitioner has the necessary expertise,
knowledge and understanding of the
gravity and seriousness involved in the
matter. The said information should not be
vague and indefinite. The word 'credentials'
connotes the qualities and the experience of
a person that make him suitable for doing a
particular job.

9. The word 'credential' has a specific
connotation and meaning. It has been
defined in Black's Law Dictionary, 8th
Edition as "1. A document or other
evidence that proves one's authority or
expertise. 2. A testimonial that a person is
entitled to credit or to the right to exercise
official power. 3. The letter of credence
given
to
an
ambassador
or
other
representative of a foreign country. 4.
Parliamentary
law.
Evidence
of
a
delegate's entitlement to be seated and vote
in a convention or other deliberative
assembly."

10. Moreover, the Oxford EnglishEnglish-Hindi 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.

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Ashok Kumar Pandey versus
State of West Bengal & Others reported
in AIR 2004 SC 280 has been pleased to
lay down the parameters to be considered
while
entertaining
a
Public
Interest
Litigation, the extract of relevant para 14 is
reproduced below:

"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
motive, 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..."
856 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

12. At this stage, it is worth
mentioning that the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors.
(Supra) has dealt with the issues of abuse
of public interest litigation and the remedial
measures by which its misuse can be
prevented or curbed. The relevant portion
of the said judgement is reproduced below:

"161. 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.

162. 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 non-
monetary directions by the courts."

13. In another case of Dattaraj
Nathuji
Thaware
v.
State
of
Maharashtra reported in (2005) 1 SCC
590, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was
pleased to hold as follows,

"12. 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 publicity-seeking is not lurking. It
is to be used as an effective weapon in the
armoury of law for delivering social
justice to citizens. 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 be publicity-oriented or founded
on personal vendetta."

14. Time and again, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has issued guidelines to
the Courts entertaining the Public Interest
Litigations to be extra cautious to ensure
that there is no abuse of the process of the
Court and further to see that in the guise of
redressing a public grievance, the public
interest litigation must not encroach upon
the sphere reserved by the Constitution to
the Executive and the Legislature. This
note of caution has been very categorically
dictated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of M/s Holicow Pictures Private
Limited versus Prem Chandra Mishra
and Others reported in (2007) 14 SCC
281. .

15. The Hon'ble Apex Court as well
as this Court in a catena of judgments has
reiterated the importance of the public
interest
litigation
but
with
certain
reservations. The jurisdiction of the public
interest litigation is exercised by the
Constitutional
Courts.
The
said
jurisdiction has been carved out by
judicial creativity. However, the courts
while exercising this jurisdiction must
exercise the same with extreme caution
and responsibility.

16. In the instant petition that has
been filed in the nature of public interest
litigation; all what is brought to the fore is
that the petitioner is raising an issue
regarding the shifting of the place of
installation of the bore-well from one place
to another within the same village. The
petitioner has neither filed any document to
show the bona fide of his contention nor he
8 All. M/S, Supertech Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Vs. Amber Hasan
857
could establish any violation of basic
human rights of the public at large.

17. Furthermore, from the perusal of
the averments made in the present petition,
the petitioner in paragraph No.4 of the
same has simply stated that "he is a
resident of village Nagla Ajeet Gram
Panchayat
Garhi
Madusua,
Pragna
Patiyali, Tehsil Aliganj, District Etah, and
as such he is member of Gaon Sabha".
Except the aforesaid declaration, the
petitioner has not made any other averment
towards
his
credentials.
The
said
description is undoubtedly vague and
indefinite and cannot be accepted as a
disclosure of his credentials.

18. In view of the above, this Court
has no hesitation to note that the petitioner
has not disclosed any credential, much less
in consonance with the words 'should
precisely
and
specifically
state'
as
mandated in the aforesaid Sub-Rule (3-A),
Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad
High Court Rules (Rules of Court, 1952) as
amended in the light of the judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Balwant Singh Chaufal (Supra).

19. Furthermore, from the perusal of
the averments made in writ petition as well
as the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, this Court could
not find any element of public interest
involved in the present petition.

20. In view of the foregoing reasons,
the instant petition is not entertainable as a
public interest litigation and is accordingly,
dismissed.

21. Needless to say that it is always
open for the residents of the concerned
village including the petitioner to raise their
grievances before the concerned authorities
in accordance with law and the authorities
are duty bound to thoroughly look into the
genuine grievances of the aggrieved people
and ensure redressal of the same within the
legal framework.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 857
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Rera Appeal (D) No. 85 of 2023

M/S, Supertech Realtors Pvt. Ltd.,New
Delhi ...Applicant
Versus
Amber Hasan ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Abhishek Khare, Aahuti Agarwal

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
Akshat Srivastava

Real ESt. Law - Real ESt. (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016- Sections 19(10),
44(1), 58 - Clean Hands Doctrine, Offer of
Possession,
Allotment
Cancellation,
Project
Delay, Promoter's Liability, Regulatory Authority,
Appeal Limitation, Third Party Rights - Real ESt.
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 -
FACTS
The appellant-promoter M/S Supertech Realtors
Pvt. Ltd. allotted Flat No. 3201 in "Super Nova"
project to respondent-allottee Amber Hasan vide
allotment letter dated 18.12.2015 for Rs.
1,84,83,403/- with completion deadline of June
2017 (with 6 months grace period). The allottee
paid Rs. 1,14,34,893/- leaving balance amount
payable at possession stage. Despite obtaining
completion certificate on 18.07.2018, promoter
failed to offer proper possession. When allottee
inspected the flat and found defects, promoter
demanded outstanding payment through letter
dated 25.09.2018. RERA directed allottee to pay
within
90
days,
but
promoter
cancelled