# Namaha v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 882
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-04-25
- **Case number:** P.I.L. Civil No. 696 of 2022
- **Bench:** Rajesh Bindal, C.J. Piyush Agrawal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/namaha-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48602
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Sri Manish Goel (Addl. A.G.), Sri Vineet
Pandey (C.S.C.), Sri A.K. Goyal (Addl.
C.S.C.), Sri Ashutosh Mishra

(A) Public interest litigation is a weapon -
used with great care and circumspection -
Court has to be careful in lifting the veil
and see what is the real objective behind -
Chapter XXII of the High Court Rules -
Sub-rule (3-A) of Rule 1 - petitioner in a
public interest litigation, is required to
disclose his credentials - Courts should
prima facie verify the credentials of the
petitioner before entertaining a PIL -
Right to Information Act provides for
complete
remedies
for
redressal
of
grievance
of
any
of
the
applicant
regarding
denial
or
furnishing
of
incomplete
information.
(Para
-
12,14,15,20)

Petition filed in public interest - seeking
direction to respondent No.2 - to disclose his
full and actual name in public domain and
produce all documents - for taking oath of office
and secrecy under his real name and to refrain
him from using the word 'Yogi' as title in his
official communication
-
even
failed
to
5 All. Namaha Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
883
furnish in response to an application under the
Right to Information Act - petitioner divulged
certain facts not in the petition. (Para -
1,15,16, )

HELD:-
Petition totally misconceived, filed
with ulterior motive by a political person,
without disclosing his complete credentials and
concealing material facts from the Court. (Para
- 21)

Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

882 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(S.C.) wherein the Apex Court has held as
under :

"13.
The
aforesaid
features
equally apply to the contentions urged on
behalf of the claimants as regards the rate
of interest. The Tribunal had awarded
interest at the rate of 12% p.a. but the same
had been too high a rate in comparison to
what is ordinarily envisaged in these
matters. The High Court, after making a
substantial enhancement in the award
amount, modified the interest component at
a reasonable rate of 7.5% p.a. and we find
no reason to allow the interest in this
matter at any rate higher than that allowed
by High Court."

23. In view of the above, the appeal is
partly allowed. Judgment and decree passed
by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the
aforesaid extent. The respondent-Insurance
Company shall deposit the amount along
with additional amount within a period of 12
weeks from today with interest at the rate of
7.5% from the date of filing of the claim
petition till the amount is deposited. The
amount already deposited be deducted from
the amount to be deposited.

24. The Tribunal shall follow the
guidelines issued by the Apex Court in A.V.
Padma V/s. Venugopal, Reported in 2012
(1) GLH (SC), 442, as the purpose of
keeping compensation is to safeguard the
interest of the claimants. As 13 years have
elapsed, once the monies are deposited in
tribunal, the amount be transmitted in the
Saving Account of claimant in Nationalized
Bank which would be furnished by claimant
without F.D.R.

25. We are thankful to learned
counsels for the parties for ably assisting
this Court.

26. Record be sent back to the
tribunal below forthwith.
----------
(2022)05ILR A882
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

P.I.L. Civil No. 696 of 2022

Namaha ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
In Person, Sri Manindra Mohan Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Manish Goel (Addl. A.G.), Sri Vineet
Pandey (C.S.C.), Sri A.K. Goyal (Addl.
C.S.C.), Sri Ashutosh Mishra

(A) Public interest litigation is a weapon -
used with great care and circumspection -
Court has to be careful in lifting the veil
and see what is the real objective behind -
Chapter XXII of the High Court Rules -
Sub-rule (3-A) of Rule 1 - petitioner in a
public interest litigation, is required to
disclose his credentials - Courts should
prima facie verify the credentials of the
petitioner before entertaining a PIL -
Right to Information Act provides for
complete
remedies
for
redressal
of
grievance
of
any
of
the
applicant
regarding
denial
or
furnishing
of
incomplete
information.
(Para
-
12,14,15,20)

Petition filed in public interest - seeking
direction to respondent No.2 - to disclose his
full and actual name in public domain and
produce all documents - for taking oath of office
and secrecy under his real name and to refrain
him from using the word 'Yogi' as title in his
official communication
-
even
failed
to
5 All. Namaha Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
883
furnish in response to an application under the
Right to Information Act - petitioner divulged
certain facts not in the petition. (Para -
1,15,16, )

HELD:-
Petition totally misconceived, filed
with ulterior motive by a political person,
without disclosing his complete credentials and
concealing material facts from the Court. (Para
- 21)

Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

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

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

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Bindal, C. J.
&
Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal, J.)

1. The present petition has been filed
in public interest, seeking direction to
respondent No.2 to disclose his full and
actual name in public domain and produce
all documents thereto. Further direction
sought to him, is for taking oath of office
and secrecy under his real name and to
refrain him from using the word 'Yogi' as
title in his official communication.

2. The respondent No.2 has been
impleaded as 'Adityanath', Member of
Legislative
Assembly,
Gorakhpur
(Urban)/Chief Minister of the State of Uttar
Pradesh.

3. The petitioner, who appeared in
person, referred to certain documents
placed on record to show that respondent
No.2 had been using different names at
different places on different occasions. He
referred to document at page 29 where his
name was mentioned as 'Aditya Nath'.
Reference was also made to another
document at page 55 where his name was
mentioned as 'Adityanath'. The same is in
Hindi. It is the nomination form of
respondent No.2 for election to 64 -
Gorakhpur Parliamentary Constituency, as
attested on April 22, 2014. It was claimed
that the said document was downloaded by
the petitioner from the website of the Lok
Sabha. Further reference was made an
affidavit sworn by respondent No.2, which
is typed in Hindi, dated February 4, 2022
while filing his nomination paper for the
State Assembly Election wherein his name
is mentioned as 'Adityanath'. The same is in
Hindi. While referring to the aforesaid
documents, it was argued that four sets of
nomination papers were filed by the same
person and only one person contested the
election.

4. Thereafter, reference was made to
document at page 83 where the name of
respondent
No.2
was
mentioned
as
'Adityanath'. It is said to be downloaded
from the website 'National Election Watch',
which is claimed to be official website of
the Election Commission of India. While
referring to notice dated April 11, 2019
issued by the Election Commission of India
to the respondent No.2, it was argued that
while adding the word 'Yogi' with his
name, even the Election Commission of
India had mixed up with him, as his name
is not Yogi Adityanath.

5. An application was filed to the
State Government under the Right to
Information Act for furnishing the requisite
information, however, the same has not
been furnished till date.

6.

Referring
to
the
aforesaid
documents, it has been submitted that
respondent No.2 is using different names at
884 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
different places. He had even taken oath
while pronouncing his name differently.
Hence, a direction is required to be issued
to him for disclosing his correct name.
More than 25 crore residents of the State of
Uttar Pradesh want answer.

7. He further submitted that he had
filed a writ petition for correction of the
name of our country as mentioned in
Article 1 of the Constitution of India,
before Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Hence,
he is a public spirited person and raises
issues of public importance in Courts.

8. On the other hand, Mr. Manish
Goel, learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for respondent No.1, submitted
that a perusal of reliefs prayed for in the
writ petition, shows that the same are for
direction
against
respondent
No.2,
impleaded as a private person. Hence, a
writ petition will not be maintainable. He
further submitted that the petitioner has not
disclosed his credentials as required under
sub-rule (3-A) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII
of the High Court Rules. While referring to
the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware Vs.
State of Maharashtra and others, (2005)
1 SCC 590 and State of Uttaranchal Vs.
Balwant Singh Chaufal and others,
(2010) 3 SCC 402, it was submitted that
the present petition having been filed for
ulterior motive, deserves to be dismissed at
the threshold, with special costs.

9. In response, the petitioner, who
appears in person, submitted that Hon'ble
the Supreme Court had sought his personal
details while he had filed a writ petition in
public interest there. Hence, he thought of
asking for details of respondent No.2 as he
is bound to disclose his identity. He further
submitted that he was a candidate from
Laxmi Nagar Assembly Constituency in the
elections held in 2020 on a ticket of Lok
Janshakti Party and secured about 70-80
votes. He further submitted that he was not
aware of the Rules and Orders of this
Court,
which
require
disclosure
of
credentials of a person while filing public
interest litigation. It was further claimed
that he is illiterate as certified by the
Election Commission of India and is not
doing anything.

10. He claimed that for filing writ
petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court
with reference to the name of our country
as
mentioned
in
Article
1
of
the
Constitution of India, he had read 18
different copies of the Constitution to make
out his case. During the course of hearing,
he was addressing arguments in English.
He could very well go through the
provisions of the Constitution, a copy of
which he was carrying with himself but,
still, he claimed himself to be illiterate
person.

11. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the paper book.

12. Sub-rule (3-A) of Rule 1 of
Chapter XXII of the High Court Rules, in
term of which a petitioner in a public
interest litigation, is required to disclose his
credentials, 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 authoritative
pronouncement by the Supreme Court or
5 All. Namaha Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
885
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."

13. In the case in hand, all what is
claimed is that the petitioner is a social
activist and he has no personal or private
interest in the matter.

14. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware's case (supra),
opined that public interest litigation is a
weapon to be used with great care and
circumspection. The Court has to be careful
in lifting the veil and see what is the real
objective behind. The process should not be
allowed to be misused. Many petitions are
filed just with a view to gain cheap
publicity. Paragraph 12 thereof is extracted
below:-

"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. As indicated above, Court must
be careful to see that a body of persons or
member of the 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 busybodies deserve to
be thrown out by rejection at the threshold,
and in appropriate cases with exemplary
costs."

15. The issue was further examined
by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Balwant
Singh Chaufal and others' case (supra).
Certain directions have been issued to
preserve purity and sanctity of public
interest litigation. Paragraph 181 thereof,
reads as under:-

"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
886 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 Courts 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.

(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."

16. At the time of hearing, the
petitioner had divulged certain more facts
which were not there in the petition,
namely, he claimed that he had contested
the Assembly election in Delhi in the year
2020 on a ticket of Lok Janshakti Party and
secured 70-80 votes. This fact was
concealed from this Court. He being a
political person, deliberately chose to
conceal his identity while filing the writ
petition, apparently with some ulterior
motive or cheap publicity.

17. Though, he had given his address
of Delhi in the petition, however, at the
time of hearing, he stated that he belongs to
Uttar Pradesh. Again an effort to mislead
the Court.

18. Further, there was a smart answer
given by him about his educational
qualification. He claimed that he had been
certified to be an illiterate person by the
Election Commission of India, a fact which
was belied on the face of it from the
conduct and presentation of the case by the
petitioner. He was arguing his case in
English. He was carrying copy of the
Constitution of India and could read the
same very well. Still, he claimed that he
had been certified to be illiterate by the
Election Commission of India, apparently
on the basis of some wrong information
furnished by him.

19.
 From
the documents
and
pleadings in the writ petition, he could not
make out any case that is sought to be
projected. Rather efforts seem to be for a
roving enquiry into certain non-existent
facts. Two documents were referred to at
pages 36 and 83. The petitioner claimed he
had downloaded these from the website of
the Election Commission of India, which
mention on the top ''National Election
Watch'. However, as referred to by the
learned counsel for the respondents, the
same is a website which is managed by an
Association for Democratic Reforms, some
5 All. Buddha Sortex Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd., Deoria Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income
 Tax, Gorakhpur & Ors.
887
private
persons/NGO.
Hence,
any
information uploaded thereon, cannot be
used against anyone.

20. In the nomination paper filed by
respondent No.2 , the name has been
correctly mentioned. There is nothing on
record to suggest what is sought to be
argued. The only prayer made is that
respondent No.2 should be asked to furnish
the information which he had even failed to
furnish in response to an application filed
by the petitioner under the Right to
Information Act. We may only add here
that the Right to Information Act provides
for complete remedies for redressal of
grievance of any of the applicant regarding
denial
or
furnishing
of
incomplete
information.

21. For the reasons mentioned above,
we find this petition to be totally
misconceived, filed with ulterior motive by
a political person, without disclosing his
complete
credentials
and
concealing
material facts from the Court. Hence, the
same is dismissed. To discourage filing of
such frivolous petitions, in our opinion, the
petitioner deserves to be burdened with
cost of ₹1,00,000/-. The same is directed to
be deposited by him within a period of six
weeks with the Viklang Kendra, Bharadwaj
Ashram, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Muir
Road, Prayagraj - 211002.

22. A copy of this order be sent to the
aforesaid Viklang Kendra for information
and availing appropriate remedy in case the
aforesaid amount is not deposited by the
petitioner within the time permitted.
----------
(2022)05ILR A887
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE JAYANT BANERJI, J.

Writ Tax No. 449 of 2022

Buddha Sortex Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd.,
Deoria ...Petitioner
Versus
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,
Gorakhpur & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Parv Agarwal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Gaurav Mahajan

A. Tax Law - The Income Tax Act, 1961 -
Section 148 - Normally the period of limitation
which is available to the assessing authority is
four years i.e., till 31.03.2020. The aforesaid
period was extended for one year by the
Ordinance,
2020
and
notification
issued
thereafter. Thus, the normal period of limitation
available to the Assessing Authority on the facts
of the present case was till 31.03.2021. The
impugned notice issued by the Assessing
Authority is wholly valid and the same has been
issued well within the period of limitation. (Para
9)
Writ Petition Dismissed. (E-10)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash
Kesarwani, J.
&
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J.)

1. Heard Sri Parv Agarwal, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gaurav
Mahajan, learned Senior Standing Counsel
for the Income Tax Department.

2. This writ petition has been filed
praying for the following reliefs:-