# Jagdish Narayan Shukla v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 8 ILRA 401
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-08-31
- **Bench:** Dilip B. Bhosale, Chief Rajan Roy
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jagdish-narayan-shukla-v-state-of-u-p-ors-44264
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Constitutional law -Public interest litigation - Writ petition - Mandamus - Transfer of Chief Secretary -
Allegations based on newspaper reports - CBI enquiry - Central Vigilance Commission - Serious allegations
- Non-joinder of necessary party - Habitual litigant - Frivolous petitions - Baseless and reckless allegations
- Abuse of process - Petition dismissed with costs

This petition, in the nature of public interest, filed by an Editor of Nishpaksh Pratidin Daily Newspaper, seeks
the following reliefs:
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to post Mr. Singhal to some other post and to appoint an able
person with reputation and integrity for the post of Chief Secretary of the State.
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing respondents No.3, 4 and 5 to take into
consideration the companies as mentioned as aforesaid which are running by the relatives of the present
Chief Secretary and to investigate in detail and if found to be bogus and inoperative, to proceed prosecution
against them as per law." (Para 2)

From bare perusal of the prayers, it is clear that the petitioner seeks reliefs against Mr. Singhal, Chief
Secretary of the State Government, making serious allegations against him, without adding him as a partyrespondent in the writ petition.
(Para
3)

Held: (13-15)
1.At this stage, we would also like to reproduce the following observations made by this Court in Misc. Bench
No. 8216 of 2016, Hindu Personal Law Board, through Ashok Pande vs. Union of India, through Cabinet
Secretary, Government of India & Ors., decided on 19.4.2016:
"It has become necessary for the Court to issue this direction in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution to ensure that valuable time of the Court is not wasted in thoroughly frivolous
cases which have no bearing on matters of public interest. Habitual litigants are increasingly flooding the
Courts with frivolous petitions. PILs are filed to cover almost every topic under the sun. Many of them are
402 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

exercises for garnering publicity. Some are intended to stall public projects, often at the behest of a
competitor. This tends to destroy the sanctity of PILs as a powerful instrument of securing socio-economic
justice to the marginalised and underprivileged. The time of the Court is exhausted in dealing with frivolous
cases with no genuine cause of public concern. This pernicious tendency has to be firmly stopped by providing
orders for anticipatory costs.
This is a means of securing an eventual award of costs in the case of a habitual litigant who, as here, has a
track record of misconceived filings. Unless this is done, the Court would become a helpless spectator to the
loss of public time and resources in dealing with motivated litigation. When lakhs of cases await judicial
decision - including those of undertrials and convicts languishing in jail for years - the Court cannot allow the
institution of administering justice to become a hapless victim of frivolous filings. Parliament, or the State
legislature, may have to step in to legislate on the malady of vexatious litigation. That is a legislative function.
In the meantime, realistic costs must be deployed if the process of the Court is to be protected against
litigious exploitation."

2.The petitioner, in the present case, has so far, we are informed, filed more than fifty PILs in this Court.
Yesterday also, we dismissed one of the PILs filed by him. While making submissions and responding to our
queries, we find him noncooperative, adamant and contentious.

3.In view of above, and having considered that the petitioner has not made Mr. Singhal as a party to the
petition and has made serious and baseless allegations against him, we dismiss this writ petition with costs
quantified at Rs.25,000/-, which shall be payable to the U.P. State Legal

## Text

8 All. Jagdish Narayan Shukla Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
401
(2016) 8 ILRA 401
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 31.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DILIP B. BHOSALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.

Misc. Bench No.- 20528 Of 2016

Jagdish Narayan Shukla ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
J.N. Shukla (In Person)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C, A.S.G., Rishad Murtaza

Constitutional law -Public interest litigation - Writ petition - Mandamus - Transfer of Chief Secretary -
Allegations based on newspaper reports - CBI enquiry - Central Vigilance Commission - Serious allegations
- Non-joinder of necessary party - Habitual litigant - Frivolous petitions - Baseless and reckless allegations
- Abuse of process - Petition dismissed with costs

This petition, in the nature of public interest, filed by an Editor of Nishpaksh Pratidin Daily Newspaper, seeks
the following reliefs:
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to post Mr. Singhal to some other post and to appoint an able
person with reputation and integrity for the post of Chief Secretary of the State.
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing respondents No.3, 4 and 5 to take into
consideration the companies as mentioned as aforesaid which are running by the relatives of the present
Chief Secretary and to investigate in detail and if found to be bogus and inoperative, to proceed prosecution
against them as per law." (Para 2)

From bare perusal of the prayers, it is clear that the petitioner seeks reliefs against Mr. Singhal, Chief
Secretary of the State Government, making serious allegations against him, without adding him as a partyrespondent in the writ petition.
(Para
3)

Held: (13-15)
1.At this stage, we would also like to reproduce the following observations made by this Court in Misc. Bench
No. 8216 of 2016, Hindu Personal Law Board, through Ashok Pande vs. Union of India, through Cabinet
Secretary, Government of India & Ors., decided on 19.4.2016:
"It has become necessary for the Court to issue this direction in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution to ensure that valuable time of the Court is not wasted in thoroughly frivolous
cases which have no bearing on matters of public interest. Habitual litigants are increasingly flooding the
Courts with frivolous petitions. PILs are filed to cover almost every topic under the sun. Many of them are
402 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

exercises for garnering publicity. Some are intended to stall public projects, often at the behest of a
competitor. This tends to destroy the sanctity of PILs as a powerful instrument of securing socio-economic
justice to the marginalised and underprivileged. The time of the Court is exhausted in dealing with frivolous
cases with no genuine cause of public concern. This pernicious tendency has to be firmly stopped by providing
orders for anticipatory costs.
This is a means of securing an eventual award of costs in the case of a habitual litigant who, as here, has a
track record of misconceived filings. Unless this is done, the Court would become a helpless spectator to the
loss of public time and resources in dealing with motivated litigation. When lakhs of cases await judicial
decision - including those of undertrials and convicts languishing in jail for years - the Court cannot allow the
institution of administering justice to become a hapless victim of frivolous filings. Parliament, or the State
legislature, may have to step in to legislate on the malady of vexatious litigation. That is a legislative function.
In the meantime, realistic costs must be deployed if the process of the Court is to be protected against
litigious exploitation."

2.The petitioner, in the present case, has so far, we are informed, filed more than fifty PILs in this Court.
Yesterday also, we dismissed one of the PILs filed by him. While making submissions and responding to our
queries, we find him noncooperative, adamant and contentious.

3.In view of above, and having considered that the petitioner has not made Mr. Singhal as a party to the
petition and has made serious and baseless allegations against him, we dismiss this writ petition with costs
quantified at Rs.25,000/-, which shall be payable to the U.P. State Legal Services Authority.

Case Law discussed:
1.Center for Public Interest Litigation and another Vs. Union of India and another - para 7
2.Hindu Personal Law Board through Ashok Pande Vs. Union of India and others - para 13

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dilip B. Bhosale, Chief Justice
&
Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Jagdish Narayan Shukla, petitioner-in-person and learned Advocate General
with Smt. Bulbul Godiyal, learned Additional Advocate General for the State-respondents.

2. This petition, in the nature of public interest, filed by an Editor of Nishpaksh Pratidin
Daily Newspaper, seeks the following reliefs:

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the
opposite parties to post Mr. Singhal to some other post and to appoint an able person with
reputation and integrity for the post of Chief Secretary of the State.

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing respondents
No.3, 4 and 5 to take into consideration the companies as mentioned as aforesaid which are running
by the relatives of the present Chief Secretary and to investigate in detail and if found to be bogus
and inoperative, to proceed prosecution against them as per law."
8 All. Jagdish Narayan Shukla Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
403
3. From bare perusal of the prayers, it is clear that the petitioner seeks reliefs against Mr.
Singhal, Chief Secretary of the State Government, making serious allegations against him, without
adding him as a party-respondent in the writ petition.

4. We have heard the petitioner-in-person. He submitted that a CBI enquiry, ordered by
Central Vigilance Commission (for short "CVC") is pending against Mr. Singhal and in view
thereof, the State Government ought not to have appointed him as the Chief Secretary. He further
submitted that the State Government should transfer him to some other post and appoint an able
person with reputation and integrity as Chief Secretary of the State. Insofar as the second prayer is
concerned, he did not make any submission.

5. We have perused the writ petition. In paragraph 12 of the writ petition and ground C
thereof, the petitioner has made the following averments:

"12. That when Mr. Singhal was working as Joint Secretary with respondent No.3Government of India in the Ministry of Fertilizer in the year 2010 a Chief Vigilance Commission's
inquiry was ordered against him for his controversial orders to import fertilizers. Later the probe
was handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation which is still in existence and the inquiry is
pending and it is due to that reason that he was returned back to this home cadre prematurely. The
matter has been reported in the Times of India on 17th August, 2016, the true copy of the same is
being annexed herewith as Annexure No.1 to this petition."

C. Because there are various grave charges of irregularities and corrupt practices
against Mr. Deepak Singhal in discharge of his official duties as is evident from various news paper
reporting in which several inquiries by C.B.I. or C.V.C. are going on. As such, there are
probabilities to a great extent for him to manipulate and tamper with the evidences sitting on key
posts and, hence, the petitioner has grave apprehension in the present case also."

6. Perusal of paragraph 12 shows that the allegations are based on newspaper reports. The
petitioner has also placed on record a newspaper cutting of his own newspaper in support of the
allegations apart from other newspaper reports.

7. The petitioner, in support, has placed heavy reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Center for Public Interest Litigation and Anr. vs. Union of India and Anr., Writ
Petition (Civil) 387 of 2005, decided on 6.10.2005. He invited our attention to the following
paragraphs of the said judgment:

"We do not think it necessary to delve into the question of maintainability of the
writ petition as the same, as noted at the threshold appears to be an offshoot of the earlier petition.

A time has come when the postings of officers holding sensitive posts should be
done in transparent manner giving no scope for any grievance. It is true that grievances can be
made or allegations can be levelled for ulterior motive or with the intention of damaging the
404 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

reputation of an officer who is likely to be appointed in a sensitive post, very often at the behest of
persons angling for the post. In the peculiar background facts it was really desirable for the State
Government to steer clear of controversy and not to post respondent No.3 as the Chief Secretary.
By doing it, it has unnecessarily created further complications and invited criticism. We, therefore,
direct the State Government to transfer the respondent No.3 to some other post in the cadre/grade to
which she belonged. The question of her suitability to be included in the cadre/grade, shall be
examined in the writ petition itself. For the present, we do not express any opinion on that issue.
The necessary steps for effectuating our order shall be taken within seven days. We make it clear
that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations as the matter is pending
before the High Court and Justice Thomas Commission."

8. Advocate General, on the other hand, on instructions, submitted that no enquiry of
whatsoever nature is pending against Mr. Singhal with the CBI either independently or at the
instance of CVC. In other words, he submitted that the CBI is not investigating any allegation or
crime or conducting any enquiry against Mr. Singhal either independently or at the instance of
CVC. He also placed on record a copy of the letter issued by CVC dated 21.1.2015 stating that
there is nothing adverse on records of the Commission in respect of Shri Deepak Singhal, IAS
(UP:82). Further the Advocate General placed on record a list of about 55 petitions/PILs filed by
the petitioner in person to contend that he is habitual litigant, known for making absolutely
baseless, reckless and scandalous allegations against everybody, like Mr. Singhal. He also invited
our attention to one of the orders passed by a Division Bench on 19.4.2011 in Misc. Bench No.
4188 of 2010 filed by the petitioner in person wherein it is observed that "the petitioner, who
appears in person, does not even have the courtesy and decency to address the Court properly or
maintain its decorum." Our experience is not different. Further observations made by the Division
Bench in the said case are also worthy and noticeable, which reads thus:

"The petitioner, who appears in person, does not even have the courtesy and
decency to address the Court properly or maintain its decorum. The Court queried of him whether
he has filed any complaint under the provisions of Rule 4(6) of the U.P. Employment Guarantee
Grievance Redressal Mechanism Rules, 2009, which provides that any citizen of India including
the petitioner herein or any registered non-government institution may make complaints, if there is
any misappropriation of funds through fake Muster Roll or in other words if the funds are
misappropriated, can file complaint. The Court could have appreciated, if the petitioner had filed
complaint and no action has been taken by the respondent authorities, then this Court could have
intervened to protect the large public interest and public revenue. The Court can even take
cognizance of the matter without there being a complaint, if the matter is of such momentus
importance that the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution is
necessary.

We find that in the instant case the petitioner has failed to discharge his duties as
he has not filed any complaint under the provisions of existing Rules. We make it clear that if the
petitioner herein approaches the Court in any other matter and does not behave in the Court, as an
individual should, it will be open to the Court to consider debarring him from appearing in person.
8 All. Jagdish Narayan Shukla Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
405
In the light of that, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter in extraordinary
writ jurisdiction."

9. In another writ petition bearing Misc. Bench No. 1278 of 2016 filed by the petitioner in
person, the Division Bench, while dismissing the said writ petition vide order dated 22.1.2016
observed that "We decline to entertain the petition since we are not satisfied in regard to the bona
fides and credentials of the petitioner."

10. One more Division Bench made severe observation against the petitioner in person in
Writ Petition No. 552 (M/B) of 2015, while disposing of the said writ petition by order dated
23.2.2015. It is not out of place to mention that the petitioner had filed a writ petition bearing Misc.
Bench No. 6615 of 2014 seeking similar relief against an Engineer-in-Chief of New Okhla
Industrial Development Authority relying upon the same decision as aforesaid and the said writ
petition was dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court with the observation that the relief
claimed essentially related to service matters in respect of which a Public Interest Litigation does
not lie and also that the decision relied upon, as aforesaid, was distinguishable on facts, as in the
said case a chargesheet had been filed against the Chief Secretary, State of U.P. before the Special
C.B.I. Court.

11. The Advocate General also placed several such orders on record. He then invited our
attention to one more order dated 24.8.2016 passed in Misc. Bench No. 19827 of 2016 filed by one
Tripuresh Tripathi against Sri Deepak Singhal. That writ petition also came to be dismissed. In that
petition, the petitioner Tripathi had challenge the appointment of Mr. Singhal contending that it
was not in accordance with Rule 7 of the Indian Administrative Services Cadre Rules, 1954. It
would be appropriate to reproduce the following observations made in the order dated 24.8.2016,
which read thus:

"Sri Onkar Pandey holding brief of petitioner's counsel has prayed for an
adjournment. We are not inclined to adjourn such an issue allegedly involving public interest in a
service matter and we find that the petition has been filed in a cavalier fashion trying to draw
similes from rules which are not relevant. Even otherwise there is no substance in the allegation
with regard to the rules as the Chief Secretary has to be appointed by the State Government.

The petition appears to have been filed only with a view to keep something
pending without any substance in it and therefore the request of adjournment is neither bona fide
nor are we of the opinion that it should be adjourned. This attitude of getting such petitions filed
and keep them pending consumes the valuable time of the Court and, therefore, the request of
adjournment is declined."

12. In this backdrop, we perused the judgment relied upon by the petitioner in person. In
our opinion, the observations made in the said judgment, in particular, the paragraph quoted above,
are of no avail to the petitioner. It is clear from perusal of the said judgment that CBI had filed
406 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

charge sheet against the then Chief Secretary of the State after obtaining sanction from the Central
Government.

13. At this stage, we would also like to reproduce the following observations made by this
Court in Misc. Bench No. 8216 of 2016, Hindu Personal Law Board, through Ashok Pande vs.
Union of India, through Cabinet Secretary, Government of India & Ors., decided on
19.4.2016:

"It has become necessary for the Court to issue this direction in the exercise of its
writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to ensure that valuable time of the Court is
not wasted in thoroughly frivolous cases which have no bearing on matters of public interest.
Habitual litigants are increasingly flooding the Courts with frivolous petitions. PILs are filed to
cover almost every topic under the sun. Many of them are exercises for garnering publicity. Some
are intended to stall public projects, often at the behest of a competitor. This tends to destroy the
sanctity of PILs as a powerful instrument of securing socio-economic justice to the marginalised
and underprivileged. The time of the Court is exhausted in dealing with frivolous cases with no
genuine cause of public concern. This pernicious tendency has to be firmly stopped by providing
orders for anticipatory costs. This is a means of securing an eventual award of costs in the case of a
habitual litigant who, as here, has a track record of misconceived filings. Unless this is done, the
Court would become a helpless spectator to the loss of public time and resources in dealing with
motivated litigation. When lakhs of cases await judicial decision - including those of undertrials
and convicts languishing in jail for years - the Court cannot allow the institution of administering
justice to become a hapless victim of frivolous filings. Parliament, or the State legislature, may
have to step in to legislate on the malady of vexatious litigation. That is a legislative function. In
the meantime, realistic costs must be deployed if the process of the Court is to be protected against
litigious exploitation."

14. The petitioner, in the present case, has so far, we are informed, filed more than fifty
PILs in this Court. Yesterday also, we dismissed one of the PILs filed by him. While making
submissions and responding to our queries, we find him non-cooperative, adamant and contentious.

15. In view of above, and having considered that the petitioner has not made Mr. Singhal as
a party to the petition and has made serious and baseless allegations against him, we dismiss this
writ petition with costs quantified at Rs.25,000/-, which shall be payable to the U.P. State Legal
Services Authority.
----------
8 All. M/S D.C. Food Products Vs Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow
407
(2016) 8 ILRA 407
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE YASHWANT VARMA, J.

Sales/Trade Tax Revision No.- 941 Of 2005
&
Sales/Trade Tax Revision No.- 942 Of 2005

M/S D.C. Food Products ...Applicant
Versus
Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
S.D. Singh, Harshvardhan Gupta

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
C.S.C.

Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Section 14 (vi) (i) - "groundnut" - roasted groundnuts - declared goods -
circular dated 20 July 1979 - Commissioner Trade Tax U.P. - roasted groundnuts covered under entry
"groundnut" - benefit of Section 14 - circular dated 24 May 2004 - annulled earlier circular - unclassified
commodity - Law Department - Gopuram Gram Mill Company v. State of Andhra Pradesh - Milak Brothers v.
Union of India - Usha Martin - Paper Products - Ratan Melting - 1979 circular continued to hold the field -
2004 circular - prospective operation - transactions prior to 24 May 2004.

While the revision raises the question as to whether roasted groundnuts stand covered under the entry
"groundnut" as used in clause (vi) (i) of section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [1956 Act] the sole
issue upon which submissions have been advanced center and revolve around a circular dated 20 July 1979
[1979 Circular] issued by the Commissioner Trade Tax U.P. which had purported to hold that roasted
groundnuts would stand covered under the aforementioned entry. The dispute arises as a consequence of a
subsequent circular dated 24 May 2004 [2004 Circular] which proceeded to annul the earlier circular.(Para 3)

Held: (Paras 14,19-25)
1.Now it needs to be borne in mind that no judgment of this Court or for that matter the Supreme Court
directly deals/dealt with the issue of whether roasted groundnut would be liable to be treated as falling within
the ambit of the entry 'groundnut' as used in clause (vi) (i) of section 14. Milak, it becomes relevant to note,
was a judgment rendered with reference to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and was not really dealing with
section 14 of the 1956 Act. While the interpretation accorded to groundnut in the said judgment may be said
to veer around or tend to support the submission of the revisionist, the Court would be justified in treading
with caution before applying a judgment which has come to be rendered with reference to the provisions of
another statute. This more so when the Court finds that the Customs Tariff Act 1975 did not employ the
words "that is to say". Similarly Gopuram while dealing with the provisions of the 1956 Act, was construing
"gram" and whether parched or fried gram would stand covered. Of course Gopuram does stress upon and
underline the significance of the phrase "that is to say" in section 14 and holds that no expansive meaning can