# Gauri Shankar Gupta v. The State of U.P. Thru Secy. and others

- **Citation:** (2012) 1 ILRA 57
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-01-18
- **Bench:** Amar Saran, Ramesh Sinha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/gauri-shankar-gupta-v-the-state-of-u-p-thru-secy-and-others-42234
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Compassionate Appointment can not be
claimed
as
alternative
mode
of
appointment-petitioner's father-died in
harness on 08.12.2004-his mother was
offered appointment on class 4th post on
29.09.2006-on refusal putting claim for
appointment on class III post-accepted
on 31.07.2007-again moved application
on 10.08.2009 claiming appointment of
the petitioner as became major-purpose
of compassionate appointment to give
immediate relief to meet out the family
from distress-in case can manage to
surprise for these considerable periodswithout accepting appointment-can not

## Text

1 All] Gauri Shankar Gupta V. The State of U.P. and others
57
to refer the dispute for industrial
adjudication to the appropriate industrial
tribunal
or labour court forthwith.
Accordingly, a writ of mandamus is
issued
directing
the
respondent
no.1/appropriate government to refer the
dispute raised by the petitioner for
industrial
adjudication
before
the
appropriate industrial tribunal or labour
court forthwith on receipt of certified
copy of the order passed by this court.

20. With the aforesaid observation
and direction, writ petition succeeds and
is allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.01.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMAR SARAN,J.
THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA,J.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. - 3400 of 2012

Gauri Shankar Gupta
 ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. Thru Secy. and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.P. Tewari
Sri S.S. Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.
Sri N.N. Mishra

Constitution of India, Article 226-Public
Interest
Litigation-Petitioner
seeking
direction-non eviction from Ponds, tanks
situated
over
non-agricultural
landnothing
whisper
as
to
why
those
occupied such public Pond could not
individually approach-before the Courtheld-PIL on representative capacity-not
maintainable

Held: Para 5

The petitioner has not been able to
explain as to why he has filed this broad
based PIL petition and why the persons,
who are sought to be evicted from the
said lands by declaring them to be
ponds, have not themselves challenged
their eviction.
Case law discussed:
2001 (RD) 689; (2010) 3 SCC 402; Rishab Dev
Jain Vs. State of UP and others, (Writ B No.
57243 of 2011) decided on 20.10.2011

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amar Saran,J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, Shri N.N. Mishra, learned
counsel for respondent No. 5 and learned
Standing Counsel representing the State.

2. This public interest litigation has
been filed by the petitioner, who claims to
be an advocate.

3. The prayer in this writ petition is
that the lands in urban areas in UP have
been shown as ponds even though the said
areas have been declared to be nonagricultural areas.

4. It was contended by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the cases of
the persons who are tenure holders or
other persons, who are occupying ponds,
Pokharas and water channels etc. in nonagricultural
urban
areas
in
district
Gorakhpur should not be evicted from the
said lands, which have been declared to
be non-agricultural lands and their cases
would not be covered by the decision of
the Supreme Court in the case of Hinch
Lal Tiwari Vs. Kamla Devi, 2001 (92)
RD 689. Another prayer is for a
mandamus restraining the respondents
from evicting the recorded tenure holders
from the ponds, Pokharas and water
58 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
channels falling under the urban areas of
district Gorakhpur.

5. The petitioner has not been able
to explain as to why he has filed this
broad based PIL petition and why the
persons, who are sought to be evicted
from the said lands by declaring them to
be ponds, have not themselves challenged
their eviction.

6. In the case of State of Utranchal
Vs. Balwant Singh chaufal and others,
(2010)3 SCC 402, it has been held that
PIL can be filed in representative capacity
only if the person concerned is unable to
approach the Courts. No averment has
been made that the persons who are being
sought to be evicted are unable to
approach the Courts.

7. Further, we do not understand as
to what public cause would be advanced
if the ratio of Hinch Lal Tiwari's case
which sought to improve the ecological
balance by ensuring that ponds etc. which
are inlet for rain water and which
facilitate re-charge of water may be
cleared off obstructions, which have been
created on it. If the vigour of the said
judgement is reduced, we can only except
more ecological damage and a falling
water table which is becoming a common
phenomena both in rural and urban areas.

8. The petitioner has also referred to
a judgement of learned Single Judge of
this Court in Rishab Dev Jain Vs. State
of UP and others, (Writ B No. 57243 of
2011) decided on 20.10.2011 where in an
individual petition filed by the aggrieved
person, the learned Single Judge after
observing that in the case before him
several judicial interventions had taken
place declaring the rights of the petitioner
therein and hence on the strength of
Hinch Lal (Supra) case he could not be
evicted therefrom without following the
procedure of law.

9. The present petition, it may be
noted, is not an individual petition filed
by the aggrieved persons.

10. In view of what has been
indicated herein above, we find no merit
in this case. It is accordingly dismissed in
limine.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.01.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 3670 of 2012

Km. Sandhya

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Compassionate Appointment can not be
claimed
as
alternative
mode
of
appointment-petitioner's father-died in
harness on 08.12.2004-his mother was
offered appointment on class 4th post on
29.09.2006-on refusal putting claim for
appointment on class III post-accepted
on 31.07.2007-again moved application
on 10.08.2009 claiming appointment of
the petitioner as became major-purpose
of compassionate appointment to give
immediate relief to meet out the family
from distress-in case can manage to
surprise for these considerable periodswithout accepting appointment-can not