# Narendra Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 11 ILRA 9
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-11-05
- **Case number:** P.I.L. CIVIL No. 19497 of 2020
- **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal, Saurabh Lavania
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/narendra-kumar-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45435
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.226 - Allahabad
High Court Rules - Chapter XXII Rule 1
Sub-Rule (3-A) - Public Interest Litigation
(P.I.L.) - Essential facts to be stated in
petition
-
petitioner
must
give
his
credentials, state public cause he is
seeking to espouse - state, with proof,
what he has done & what expertise he has
on the subject matter of PIL - what
sufficient exercise has been carried out
by him before the administration prior to
knocking the door of Court - what injury
would be caused to the downtrodden of
10 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the society or public at large if cause
under PIL is not espoused by the Court
(Para 12)

Petitioner sought quashing of letter of Chief
Engineer directing the inspecting agency to
inspect a firm - Petitioner simply stated that he
is a Lawyer and a social work - without
disclosing his credentials - Held - dispute is
between two groups which is in the realm of a
private dispute - cannot be agitated as P.I.L. -
Petition not on behalf of any disadvantageous
group of persons rather on behalf of competitor
- matter does not involve basic human rights -
Public Interest Litigation, not maintainable (Para
16, 21, 22)

Dismissed (E-5)

Listed of Cases cited:-

## Text

11 All. Narendra Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
9
whether PCI or AICTE shall be the apex
body in the field of pharmacy education,
came up before supreme court. Supreme
Court after detailed consideration both the
Acts
concerned,
in
paragraph
87
concluded:

"87. In view of the above and for
the reasons stated above, it is held that in
the field of Pharmacy Education and more
particularly so far as the recognition of
degrees
and
diplomas
of
Pharmacy
Education is concerned, the Pharmacy Act,
1948 shall prevail. The norms and
regulations set by the PCI and other
specified authorities under the Pharmacy
Act would have to be followed by the
concerned institutions imparting education
for degrees and diplomas in Pharmacy,
including the norms and regulations with
respect to increase and/or decrease in
intake capacity of the students and the
decisions of the PCI shall only be followed
by the institutions imparting degrees and
diplomas in Pharmacy. The questions are
answered accordingly. "

9. Nothing displacing the aforesaid
judgments has been placed by the
respondents before this court. In view of
the aforesaid settled legal position, there
is no dispute that PCI is the final
authority for Pharmacy education whose
decisions are to be followed by all
concerned. Once PCI had taken a policy
decision with regard to norms for opening
new pharmacy institutions or permission
for new pharmacy courses in the existing
approved pharmacy institutions, it was
beyond
the
ambit
of
the
State
Government or any of its committees to
take a stand at variance with that of PCI.
The State Government and all other
concerned are bound to follow the policy
of PCI.

10. In view of above, all the writ
petitions are allowed.

11. The impugned decision dated
15.05.2020 is set aside to the extent the
same relates to the petitioner institutions
only. The petitioner institutions are
permitted to participate in the counselling
being
conducted
for
admission
to
Bachelors of Pharmacy course for the
academic year 2020-21. The respondents
are directed to immediately take required
steps for the same.
----------
(2020)11ILR A9
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.11.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.
THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

P.I.L. CIVIL No. 19497 of 2020

Narendra Kumar Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shobhit Kant

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Rishabh Kapoor

Constitution of India, Art.226 - Allahabad
High Court Rules - Chapter XXII Rule 1
Sub-Rule (3-A) - Public Interest Litigation
(P.I.L.) - Essential facts to be stated in
petition
-
petitioner
must
give
his
credentials, state public cause he is
seeking to espouse - state, with proof,
what he has done & what expertise he has
on the subject matter of PIL - what
sufficient exercise has been carried out
by him before the administration prior to
knocking the door of Court - what injury
would be caused to the downtrodden of
10 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the society or public at large if cause
under PIL is not espoused by the Court
(Para 12)

Petitioner sought quashing of letter of Chief
Engineer directing the inspecting agency to
inspect a firm - Petitioner simply stated that he
is a Lawyer and a social work - without
disclosing his credentials - Held - dispute is
between two groups which is in the realm of a
private dispute - cannot be agitated as P.I.L. -
Petition not on behalf of any disadvantageous
group of persons rather on behalf of competitor
- matter does not involve basic human rights -
Public Interest Litigation, not maintainable (Para
16, 21, 22)

Dismissed (E-5)

Listed of Cases cited:-

1. Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee
Vs C.K. Ranjan (2003) 7 SCC 546

2. Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs U.O.I. (1984) 2
SCR 67

3. Ramsharan Autyanuprasi & anr. U.O.I. & anr.
AIR 1989 SC 549

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.
& Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania, J.)

1. Heard Sri H. N. Singh, Senior
Counsel assisted by Sri Shobhit Kant,
learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri H.
P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief
Standing
Counsel
appearing
for
respondent No.1 and Sri Rishab Kapoor,
learned Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to
5.

2. The petitioner is an Advocate by
profession and has preferred this petition
in Public Interest. In paragraph - 4 of the
petition, he has stated that he is also
involved in social work, but he has not
disclosed his credentials or the nature of
social work so far done by him.

3. The petitioner in Public Interest
seeks quashing of letter dated 18.9.2020
of the Chief Engineer (Purchase) of U.P.
Jal Nigam requesting M/s Crown Agents
(India) Pvt. Ltd. to inspect M/s. Rashmi
Metaliks Ltd., Kolkata and issuance of
mandamus directing respondent Nos.2
and 3 not to permit re-inspection of M/s
Rashmi Metaliks Limited, Kolkata.

4. The normal rule is that a person,
who suffers a legal injury or whose legal
right is infringed, alone has locus standi
to invoke the writ jurisdiction to avoid
miscarriage of justice. The said common
rule of locus standi stands relaxed where
the grievance is raised before the Court
on behalf of poor, deprived, illiterate or
the
disabled
persons,
who
cannot
approach the Court independently for
redressal of the legal wrong or the injury
caused to them on account of violation of
any constitutional or legal right. These
are mostly cases in public interest, i.e.,
cases on behalf of class of persons
mentioned above.

5. However, the relaxation so provided
from the strict rule of locus standi lately came
to be misused or abused by unscrupulous
persons seeking cheap publicity. Therefore, the
Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal v.
Balwant Singh Chaufal [(2010) 3 SCC 402]
observed that as the process of the Court is
frequently abused in the name of Public
Interest Litigation, all High Courts need to
frame Rules to prevent such abuse. In
compliance with the directions of the Supreme
Court, the Allahabad High Court Rules were
also amended and Sub-Rule (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
11 All. Narendra Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
11
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
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."

6. A simple reading of the aforesaid
Rule reveals that in addition to the other
requirements mentioned under the 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 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.

7. The petitioner in the writ petition,
except for mentioning that he is a Lawyer
and is involved in a social work, has not
stated anything covering any of the above
essential requirements. In short, he has not
disclosed his credentials.

8. 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-English-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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12.

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.

13. In Guruvayoor Devaswom
Managing Committee v. C.K. Ranjan
[(2003) 7 SCC 546], it has been observed
that the Courts are constitutionally bound
to protect the fundamental rights of
disadvantageous people and therefore, can
entertain petitions under Articles 32/226 of
the Constitution of India filed by any
interested person in the welfare of the
12 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
people who are in a disadvantageous
position and are unable to knock the doors
of the Courts.

14. The petitioner in filing this
petition in Public Interest has not even
disclosed that he is 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.

15. It is well-settled that Public
Interest Litigation is for ensuring basic
human rights to the deprived and to secure
social, economic and political justice. The
Apex Court in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v.
Union of India [(1984) 2 SCR 67]
observed that the public interest litigation is
not in the nature of adversary litigation but
a challenge to the Government and its
officers to make basic human rights
meaningful to the deprived and vulnerable
sections of the community. It is only to
protect such class of persons against
violation of their basic human rights which
is the constitutional obligation of the
executive that ordinarily recourse to public
interest litigation may be permitted.

16. 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 allegation that he is
a Lawyer and 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.

17. The firm, i.e., M/s Rashmi
Metaliks Ltd., Kolkata in question was
earlier inspected and was declared in
Category 'C'.

18. The letter dated 28.08.2020
(Annexure - 3) of the Chief Engineer
(Purchase), U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow on
record clearly stated that the inspecting
agency, i.e., M/s Crown Agents (India) Pvt.
Ltd., New Delhi may inspect the aforesaid
firm and it is only on its certification that
the firm meets the standards provided the
supply from the firm-M/s Rashmi Metaliks
Ltd., would be taken.

19. It is pertinent to mention here that
U.P. Jal Nigam is not directly involved in
the purchase of any material from any firm,
rather it awards contracts on turn-key basis
and it is the contractor who makes
purchases of the material from amongst
firms prescribed by the U. P. Jal Nigam,
provided there is otherwise no legal
impediment.

20. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances and the letter of the Chief
Engineer (Purchase) on record, since the
purchases from the aforesaid firm would be
taken subsequent to its certification by the
inspecting agency, we do not find that this
matter requires interference by us in
exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction.

21. Moreover, the controversy sought
to be raised is one relating to award of
contracts and the possibility of the
petitioner being set-up by the rival groups
cannot be ruled out. It is certainly not a
petition on behalf of any disadvantageous
11 All. Jaymatajee Enterprises (Seller), Ashutosh Pally, Jalpaiguri, W.B. & Anr. Vs. The Commissioner of
 Customs (Preventive), Sector H, Kendriya Bhawan, Lucknow & Ors.
13
group of persons rather and one on behalf
of a competitor.

22. It is trite to mention here that a
dispute between two warring groups is in
the realm of a private dispute and is not
allowed to be agitated as a Public Interest
Litigation vide Ramsharan Autyanuprasi
and another v. Union of India and others
[AIR 1989 SC 549].

23. Accordingly, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, as narrated
above, the petition is dismissed as not
maintainable in public interest at the behest
of the petitioner.
----------
(2020)11ILR A13
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.10.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHASHI KANT GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ Tax No. 573 of 2020

Jaymatajee Enterprises (Seller), Ashutosh
Pally, Jalpaiguri, W.B. & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
The
Commissioner
of
Customs
(Preventive), Sector H, Kendriya Bhawan,
Lucknow & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Shubham Agrawal

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Ramesh Chandra Shukla

A. Tax Law -- Foreign Trade Regulation
Act; Customs Act, 1962:-Section 14(2),
110, 111, 123, 144, 151-A;- Customs
Valuation (Determination of the Value of
Imported Goods) Rules, 2007: Rule 3, 4 to
9, 12; Instruction No. 01/2017-Cus. (F.
No.
591/04/2016-Cus.
(AS))
dated
08.02.2017. -Seizure of goods

Section 110, Customs Act, 1962 - "reasons
to believe" - The power of seizure of goods can
be resorted to only when the Officer exercising the
said power has "reasons to believe" that the goods
are liable to confiscation. In the present case, the
goods were admittedly at Gorakhpur and not
seized from any port or any custom area to form a
belief that the goods were being imported into
India. There was evidence in the form of transport
documents to show that the goods were being
transported within India. (Para 30, 32)

It is well-settled that the 'reasons to believe
must be based upon acceptable materials,
which have to be more than a moon shine.
The material on record overwhelming suggests
that the 'reasons to believe' were based upon the
opinion
of
the
local
dealers,
prima
facie
examination of the goods by naked eye and
inscriptions in foreign language on some bags. The
reasons given for forming a belief for exercise of
power of seizure are invalid. The said reasons even
fail the test of 'wednesbury principles' as no
reasonable person can reach to conclusion of the
country of origin of 'Areca Nuts' by mere perusal
from naked eye as well as the opinion of the
traders, as the ICAR-National Bureau of Plant
Genetic
Resources
(Independent
Council
of
Agricultural Research) as well as the Ministry of
Agriculture and Farmer Welfare have firmly opined
that the country of origin cannot be traced by any
laboratory method also. (Para 31, 33, 36)

B. Alternative remedy - No appeal lies
against a seizure order. The goods detained
are perishable in nature and considering the fact
that relegating the petitioners to the appellate
remedy would render the entire exercise futile as
by then the goods itself will be of no value. (Para
24, 26)

C. Section 123, 144 - It is a common
ground
that
'Areca
Nuts'
is
neither
prohibited nor notified goods. (Para 6, 34)

D. Section 125, 151-A, 110-A; Circular
dated 16th August, 2017 - The seizure
memo as well as the provisional release
order are contrary to the Act and the