# Rahul Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2019) 2 ILRA 1439
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-05-31
- **Case number:** PIL No. 1215 of 2019
- **Bench:** Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rahul-kumar-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-44595
- **Pages:** 22

## Headnote

1440 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
C.S.C., Sri Dharmaveer Singh

A. Public Interest Litigation - Petty
matters
of
encroachment
&
illegal
construction on public utility land -
Efficacious Statutory remedy available
under
relevant
Acts
-
Hence
PIL
ordinarily not to be entertained-PIL filed
with
the
grievances
that
private
respondents have made encroachment
on
public
utility
land,
chak
road
(pathway), chak nali in villages as well
as in Nagar Panchayats, municipalities
and in Nagar Nigams
Held:-
In
the
matter
of
removal
of
encroachment
of
pathways,
drains
etc.,
statutory remedy is available to the persons
under section 133 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, u/s 26 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006,
and under the Acts which govern the local
bodies, Nagar Nigams, Municipal Corporations,
Nagar Panchayats, Municipalities etc - Hence
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) ordinarily should
not be entertained - If there is inaction on
the part of statutory authorities, the aggrieved
person can approach to High Court for
appropriate direction but not by way of PIL.
(Para 43)
Public Interest Litigations dismissed (E-5)
List of cases cited: -

## Text

_Characters 0–39,928 of 71,818. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39928 for what follows._

2 All. Rahul Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. & Ors.
1439
judgment dated 09.02.2012 and award
dated 25.02.2012 nor filed any cross
objection by which the compensation was
awarded to the appellant/claimant, as
such, due to the above said facts, the
amount
already
paid
to
the
appellant/claimant and opposite party
no.3 as compensation cannot be recovered
by the U.P.S.R.T.C.

34. Before parting, we would like to
point
out
that
the
findings
and
observations, given herein above, would
not
affect
the
claims/compensation
claimed by the legal heirs in relation to
death of a minor, as in this case we have
only dealt with claim made by ClaimantAppellant, who was major and he has own
source of income and as per the case, he
was not dependent upon the deceased.

35. However, we modify the
judgment dated 09.02.2012 in view of the
principles settled by the Hon'ble Apex
Court as stated herein above. In addition
to the amount of compensation i.e.
2,64,000/-, awarded by Tribunal and
already paid by the U.P.S.R.T.C, the
appellant is also entitled for the following
amount by way of compensation :

(a) Towards Loss of Estate -
Rs.15,000/-

(b)
Towards
Loss
of
Consortium - Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- for
legal heir)

(c) Towards Funeral Expenses -
Rs.15,000/-

Total = 1,10,000/-

36. On the total amount aforesaid
Rs.1,10,000/-, the appellant would be
entitled to the interest @ 12% per annum
from the date of filing of the Claim
Petition, as awarded in the case of
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd.
(Supra).

37. For the foregoing reasons, the
present appeal filed by the appellant
against the judgment dated 09.02.2012
and the award dated 25.02.2012, passed
by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Lucknow/Additional District Judge, Court
No.1, Lucknow in Claim Petition No.02
of 2004, is partly allowed and the award
given by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Lucknow against the Loss of
Estate,
Funeral
Expenses,
Loss
of
Consortium is modified and the same is
awarded to the appellant as stated herein
above.

38. No order as to costs.
----------
(2019)10ILR A1439

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.05.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.
THE HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

PIL No. 1215 of 2019
&
Other PIL Cases No. 1216 of 2019, 1218 of
2019, 1219 of 2019, 1224 of 2019, 1226 of
2019, 1256 of 2019,1265 of 2019, 1268 of
2019, 1270 of 2019, 1292 of 2019,1324 of
2019 & 1329 of 2019

Rahul Kumar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Kamlesh Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
1440 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
C.S.C., Sri Dharmaveer Singh

A. Public Interest Litigation - Petty
matters
of
encroachment
&
illegal
construction on public utility land -
Efficacious Statutory remedy available
under
relevant
Acts
-
Hence
PIL
ordinarily not to be entertained-PIL filed
with
the
grievances
that
private
respondents have made encroachment
on
public
utility
land,
chak
road
(pathway), chak nali in villages as well
as in Nagar Panchayats, municipalities
and in Nagar Nigams
Held:-
In
the
matter
of
removal
of
encroachment
of
pathways,
drains
etc.,
statutory remedy is available to the persons
under section 133 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, u/s 26 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006,
and under the Acts which govern the local
bodies, Nagar Nigams, Municipal Corporations,
Nagar Panchayats, Municipalities etc - Hence
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) ordinarily should
not be entertained - If there is inaction on
the part of statutory authorities, the aggrieved
person can approach to High Court for
appropriate direction but not by way of PIL.
(Para 43)
Public Interest Litigations dismissed (E-5)
List of cases cited: -
1. Bhagalpur Blinding case Kharti & ors. (II) Vs
St. of Bihar & Ors (1981) 1 SCC 627
2. Kharti & ors. (IV) Vs St. of Bihar & ors.
(1981) 2 SCC 493
3.Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs Union of India &
ors. (1997) 10 SCC 549
4.People's Union for Democratic Rights & ors.
Vs Union of India & ors. (1982) 3 SCC 235
5.Delhi Jal Board Vs National Campaign for
Dignity & Rights of Sewerage & Allied Workers
(2011) 8 SCC 568
6. State of Uttaranchal Vs Balwant Singh
Chaufal & ors. (2010) 3 SCC 402;
7.Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil Vs Dr. Mahesh
Madhav Gosavi & ors. (1987) 1 SCC 227
8.Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action Vs
Union of India & ors. (1996) 5 SCC 281
9.Vineet Narain & ors. Vs Union of India & anr.
(1998) 1 SCC 226
10.Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi Vs St. of A.P.
& ors. (2006) 3 SCC 549
11.Delhi Airtech Services Private Limited &
anr. Vs St. of U.P.& ors. (2011) 9 SCC 354
12.M.C. Mehta Vs Kamal Nath & ors. (1997) 1
SCC 388
13. Joshi Vs St. of Mah. & ors. (2012) 3 SCC 619
14.Bangalore Medical Trust Vs B.S. Muddappa
& ors. (1991) 4 SCC 54
15.M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs Radhey Shyam
Sahu & ors. (1999) 6 SCC 464
16.BALCO Employees' Union (Regd.) Vs Union
of India & ors. (2002) 2 SCC 333
17.Union of India & ors Vs J.D. Suryavanshi
(2011) 13 SCC 167
18.The Directorate of Film Festivals & ors. Vs
Gaurav Ashwin Jain & ors (2007) 4 SCC 737
19.Dr. Duryodhan Sahu & Ors. Vs Jitendra
Kumar Mishra & ors. (1998) 7 SCC 273
20.Gurpal Singh Vs St. of Punj. & ors. (2005)
5 SCC 136
21.Phool Chandra & anr. Vs St. of U.P. (2014)
13 SCC 112
22.Subrata Roy Sahara Vs Union of India &
ors. (2014) 8 SCC 470

(Delivered by Hon'ble.Pradeep Kumar
Singh Baghel, J. & Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan
Agarwal, J.)
2 All. Rahul Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. & Ors.
1441

1. Since common question of law is
involved in this batch of petitions thus
they are being decided by this common
judgment. However, for convenience the
facts of the lead petition being Public
Interest Litigation No. 1215 of 2019 are
taken for consideration.

2. The petitioner in the said petition1
has claimed that he is a public spirited
person of Mohalla Bhiti Chowk, District
Mau. He has espoused the cause of
general public of the aforesaid mohalla
for protecting public utility land. Relief
sought in the petition reads as under:

"i) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Mandamus
directing the respondent no. 2 to 4 to
remove
the
illegal
encroachment
/
construction made by respondent no. 5
over the Arazi No. 985 area about 0.36
hectare situated at Mohalla Bhiti Chowk,
District Mau recorded as 'Nala (Nali
Nalkoop) and road' in the revenue
record."

3. It is stated that Mohalla Bhiti
Chowk
was
brought
under
the
consolidation operation. Arazi No. 985
area 0.36 hectare which is situated in the
said mohalla, was recorded as 'Nala (Nali
Nalkoop) and road' in the revenue
papers. The aforesaid land is covered
under the provisions of Section 132 of the
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1952 and the U.P. Land
Revenue Code, 2006.

4. It is alleged that the fifth
respondent, who is a private person, has
made illegal encroachment upon Arazi
No. 985 area about 0.36 hectare, however
the revenue authorities have not taken any
action against the fifth respondent who
has made illegal encroachment upon the
public utility land. The petitioner has
made an application dated 12.3.2019
regarding the said illegal encroachment, a
copy of the application addressed to the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mau is on the
record, however, the petitioner has not
filed
any
receipt
that
the
said
representation has been received by the
authority concerned. It is stated that in
spite of the aforesaid application the
respondents are not taking action to
remove the illegal encroachment.

5. We have heard learned counsel
for the petitioner and the learned Standing
Counsel.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits
that
since
the
authorities
concerned have failed to remove the
illegal encroachment hence the petitioner
who is a public spirited person, has no
other option but to approach this Court by
the instant public interest litigation.

7. We find that a large number of
public interest litigation are filed in this
Court for similar relief where the
grievances
are
raised
that
private
respondents have made encroachment on
public utility land, chakroad (pathway),
nali in villages as well as in Nagar
Panchayats, municipalities and in Nagar
Nigams. To illustrate the said fact we
refer some of the reliefs of following
public interest litigations filed in this
Court:

PIL
No.
1216
of
2019
(Sarvjeet Verma v. State of U.P. &
others):

"(i) issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Mandamus
directing the respondent authority to
enquire into the matter and remove
1442 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
immediately
the
encroachment
of
respondent no.4 from the well (Kuwa),
water pipeline (Nal) and the place of
religious and other social work place,
situated at Araji No. 677K, Village Jalauji
Chak Rajman, P.S. & Tehsil Sikandarpur,
District Ballia.

(ii) issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Mandamus
directing the respondent no.3 to decide
the representation of the petitioner dated
19.3.2019 (Annexure No. 4 to the writ
petition), within the period so fixed by this
Hon'ble Court.

PIL No. 1329 of 2019 (Mustaq
Ahmad v. State of U.P. & others):

(a) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing to the authorities concerned to
restrain
the
trace
passers
as
like
respondent No. 8 and 9 for raising
constructions over public utility land and
to evict them from Araji No. 117(M),
124(M), 123(M), 125(M) Mauja Jhunsi
Kohna,
Tahsil
Phoolpur,
District
Prayagraj.

PIL No. 1324 of 2019 (Bhoora
@ Farookh and others v. State of U.P.
& others):

(i) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding/directing the respondents to
construct the Nali from the house of
Munnu Fakir to house of Idrish Pradhan
in pursuance of proposal of the Gaon
Sabha and sanction of the deep Nali by
the Government.

PIL No. 1292 of 2019 (Paras
Nath Kushwaha v. State of U.P. &
others):

(I) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing to the respondent No. 2 to
implement the order dated 31/08/2017
passed in Case No. 3/2010 (State Versus
Sant Lal and others) U/s 133 Cr.P.C.
P.S.-Baresar,
District-Ghazipur
and
remove the encroachment from drainage
in question within stipulated time period.

PIL No. 1268 of 2019 (Safeek
Khan v. State of U.P. & others):

(a) issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of MANDAMUS
directing the respondents authorities to
restrain the illegal construction in Gata
No. 160 which is public Rasta in view of
the representation dated 10.3.2019.

PIL No. 1270 of 2019 (Girish
Chandra Tripathi v. State of U.P. &
others):

A. To issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the respondent no. 2 to 4 to
take legal action against the encroachers/
private respondent nos. 6 to 28 for
removal of their illegal encroachment
nuisance and obstruction over the Plots of
"Charagaah/ Lea" being Plot nos. 30,
117, 118-Kha, 162, 164, 177, 441, 442,
471, 473, 475, 533 (12 Plots) total area
as 2.1120 hectare situated at village
Fareedpur Post Bandighat, Police Station
and
Tehsil
Muhammadabad
Gohna,
district Mau expeditiously within a period
so stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.

PIL No. 1265 of 2019 (Afroz
Tabassum v. State of U.P. & others):

a) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing to the respondent no. 2 to 3 to
release the public hand pumps from the
illegal possession of the respondent no. 4
to 11 to meet the ends of justice.

PIL No. 1256 of 2019 (Ram
Ashray @ Ram Asre v. State of U.P. &
others):

I. issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding and directing the respondent
No. 2 i.e. District Magistrate, Prayagraj
2 All. Rahul Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. & Ors.
1443
to take necessary action against the Gram
Pradhan to make a construction of the
Panchayat Bhawan and install the Hand
Pump on the allotted Plot No. 163 Kha M,
situated in the aforesaid village from his
own money.

PIL
No.
1218
of
2019
(Ranveer Singh v. State of U.P. &
others):

1. To issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Mandamus
directing the respondent no. 2 to remove
the encroachment & illegal possession of
Res. No. 4 to 18 on Government Estate
land being Gata No. 66/2 area 0.701
Hectare & Gata No. 67/2 area 0.440
Hectare situated in Mauja Araji Imlak,
Tehsil-Kirawali, District-Agra.

2. To issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Mandamus
directing the respondent no. 2 to conduct
high level inquiry against guilty persons
who have facilitated in encroachment &
illegal possession of Res. No. 4 to 18 on
Government Estate land being Gata No.
66/2 area 0.701 Hectare & Gata No. 67/2
area 0.440 Hectare situated in Mauja
Araji Imlak, Tehsil-Kirawali, DistrictAgra and take appropriate action against
them so that the action of land grabbers
may be discouraged.

PIL No. 1226 of 2019 (Ram
Chandra v. State of U.P. & others):

1-Issue
a
writ,
order
or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondent no.2 to consider
and decide the representation/ complaint
dated 23-4-2019 and take effective action
for removal of encroachment on the land
of the P.W.D. situate in Arabpur Tehsil
and
District
Fatehpur
and
ensure
ejectment of encroachers forthwith.

2- Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondent no. 2 to take
strict legal action against the respondent
no. 4 and 5 and other encroachers of
P.W.D. Land situate in Arabpur Tehsil
and District Fatehpur.

PIL
No.
1219
of
2019
(Rajendra Pathak v. State of U.P. &
others):

i) issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Mandamus
directing the respondent to remove the
encroachment from the Khasara No. 373
situated in village and post Gaura Tehsil
Bhadohi District Bhadohi which is a state
land.

PIL No. 1224 of 2019 (Shiv
Charan alias Prahalad v. State of U.P.
& others):

A- To issue a Writ, Order or
Direction in the nature of Mandamus
Commanding the Respondents to perform
their duties under the law and procedure
and get vacated the Auction Platform
(Nilami Chabutara) made in Mandi
Esthal Etawah for the purpose of loading/
unloading by the farmers bringing their
product for sale and purchase.

B- To issue a Writ, Order or
Direction in the nature of Mandamus
Commanding the Respondents to perform
their duties for vacating the auction
platform (nilami chabutara) situated in
Mandi Esthal Etawah within stipulated
period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble
Court and to take punitive action against
the encraochers.

C- To issue a Writ, Order or
Direction in the nature of Mandamus
Commanding the Respondents to decide
the
petitioner's
Application
dated
12.04.2019 (Annexure No. 13 to the Writ
Petition) within stipulated period as may
be fixed by this Hon'ble Court."

8. Before adverting to the issue
raised in the aforementioned public
1444 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
interest
litigations,
it
would
be
advantageous to have a look at the law
laid down by the Supreme Court in
respect of the scope of public interest
litigation. The nature of public interest
litigation is not adversarial litigation. One
of the important cases entertained by the
Supreme Court as a public interest
litigation was way back in 1980 in
Bhagalpur Blinding case, where the
Supreme Court has treated a letter as a
public interest litigation. In the case of
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of
India and others, a new dimension was
given by the Supreme Court. The PIL was
used as a new tool to the superior courts
to protect fundamental rights of poor
masses who have no access to the courts
for redressal of their grievance. To meet
that object, the principle of locus standi
was relaxed.

9. The object of public interest
litigation is to bring improvement for poor
masses. The poor too have civil and
political rights and the rule of law is
meant for them also. The Court has
noticed that if the fundamental right of the
poor and helpless victim of injustice is
sought to be enforced by public interest
litigation, it is criticized by some
champions of human rights as waste of
time by the highest court in law. The
Court has extracted paragraph nos. 2 & 3
of the judgment in People's Union for
Democratic Rights and others v. Union
of India and others in its judgment in the
case of Delhi Jal Board v. National
Campaign for Dignity & Rights of
Sewerage
&
Allied
Workers
and
others:

"26. ... ... ...

2. ...We wish to point out with
all the emphasis at our command that
public interest litigation which is a
strategic arm of the legal aid movement
and which is intended to bring justice
within the reach of the poor masses, who
constitute the low visibility area of
humanity, is a totally different kind of
litigation from the ordinary traditional
litigation which is essentially of an
adversary character where there is a
dispute between two litigating parties, one
making claim or seeking relief against the
other and that other opposing such claim
or resisting such relief. Public interest
litigation is brought before the court not
for the purpose of enforcing the right of
one
individual
against
another
as
happens in the case of ordinary litigation,
but it is intended to promote and vindicate
public interest which demands that
violations of constitutional or legal rights
of large numbers of people who are poor,
ignorant or in a socially or economically
disadvantaged position should not go
unnoticed and unredressed. That would
be destructive of the rule of law which
forms one of the essential elements of
public interest in any democratic form of
Government. The rule of law does not
mean that the protection of the law must
be available only to a fortunate few or
that the law should be allowed to be
prostituted by the vested interests for
protecting and upholding the status quo
under the guise of enforcement of their
civil and political rights. The poor too
have civil and political rights and the rule
of law is meant for them also, though
today it exists only on paper and not in
reality. If the sugar barons and the
alcohol kings have the fundamental right
to carry on their business and to fatten
their purses by exploiting the consuming
public, have the chamars belonging to the
lowest strata of society no fundamental
right to earn an honest living through
2 All. Rahul Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. & Ors.
1445
their sweat and toil? The former can
approach the courts with a formidable
army of distinguished lawyers paid in four
or five figures per day and if their right to
exploit is upheld against the Government
under the label of fundamental right, the
courts are praised for their boldness and
courage and their independence and
fearlessness
are
applauded
and
acclaimed. But, if the fundamental right of
the poor and helpless victims of injustice
is sought to be enforced by public interest
litigation, the so-called champions of
human rights frown upon it as waste of
time of the highest court in the land,
which, according to them, should not
engage itself in such small and trifling
matters.
Moreover,
these
self-styled
human rights activists forget that civil and
political rights, priceless and invaluable
as they are for freedom and democracy,
simply do not exist for the vast masses of
our people. Large numbers of men,
women and children who constitute the
bulk of our population are today living a
sub- human existence in conditions of
abject poverty; utter grinding poverty has
broken their back and sapped their moral
fibre. They have no faith in the existing
social and economic system. Public
interest litigation, as we conceive it, is
essentially a cooperative or collaborative
effort on the part of the petitioner, the
State or public authority and the court to
secure observance of the constitutional or
legal rights, benefits and privileges
conferred upon the vulnerable sections of
the community and to reach social justice
to them. The State or public authority
against whom public interest litigation is
brought should be as much interested in
ensuring
basic
human
rights,
constitutional as well as legal, to those
who are in a socially and economically
disadvantaged position, as the petitioner
who brings the public interest litigation
before the court. The State or public
authority
which
is
arrayed
as
a
respondent in public interest litigation
should, in fact, welcome it, as it would
give it an opportunity to right a wrong or
to redress an injustice done to the poor
and weaker sections of the community
whose welfare is and must be the prime
concern of the State or the public
authority.

3. There is a misconception in
the minds of some lawyers, journalists
and men in public life that public interest
litigation is unnecessarily cluttering up
the files of the court and adding to the
already staggering arrears of cases which
are pending for long years and it should
not therefore be encouraged by the court.
This is, to our mind, a totally perverse
view smacking of elitist and status quoist
approach. Those who are decrying public
interest litigation do not seem to realise
that courts are not meant only for the rich
and the well-to-do, for the landlord and
the gentry, for the business magnate and
the industrial tycoon, but they exist also
for the poor and the down-trodden, the
have-nots and the handicapped and the
half-hungry millions of our countrymen.
So far the courts have been used only for
the purpose of vindicating the rights of
the wealthy and the affluent. It is only
these privileged classes which have been
able to approach the courts for protecting
their vested interests. It is only the
moneyed who have so far had the golden
key to unlock the doors of justice. .....No
State has a right to tell its citizens that
because a large number of cases of the
rich and the well-to-do are pending in our
courts, we will not help the poor to come
to the courts for seeking justice until the
staggering load of cases of people who
can afford, is disposed of. The time has
1446 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
now come when the courts must become
the courts for the poor and struggling
masses of this country. They must shed
their character as upholders of the
established order and the status quo. They
must be sensitised to the need of doing
justice to the large masses of people to
whom justice has been denied by a cruel
and heartless society for generations. The
realisation must come to them that social
justice is the signature tune of our
Constitution and it is their solemn duty
under the Constitution to enforce the
basic human rights of the poor and
vulnerable sections of the community and
actively help in the realization of the
constitutional goals."

(Emphasis supplied)

10. In the case of State of
Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal
and others the Supreme Court went
elaborately into all the aspects including
the origin and history of the Public
Interest Litigation and has categorized the
public interest litigation in three phases
from origin to its current trend. The Court
also considered various facets of public
interest
litigation,
the
backdrop
of
criticism from within and outside of the
system. The Court has categorized the
concept and development of public
interest litigation in three phases in the
following terms:

"43. In this judgment, we would
like to deal with the origin and
development of public interest litigation.
We deem it appropriate to broadly divide
the public interest litigation in three
phases:

Phase I.- It deals with cases of
this Court where directions and orders
were
passed
primarily
to
protect
fundamental rights under Article 21 of the
marginalized groups and sections of the
society who because of extreme poverty,
illiteracy and ignorance cannot approach
this court or the High Courts.

Phase II.- It deals with the cases
relating to protection, preservation of
ecology, environment, forests, marine life,
wildlife, mountains, rivers, historical
monuments etc. etc.

Phase III.- It deals with the
directions issued by the Courts in
maintaining the probity, transparency and
integrity in governance."

11. In the cases, under Phase-I the
Court has observed that "in order to
preserve and protect the fundamental
rights of marginalized, deprived and poor
section of society, the Court relaxed the
traditional rule of locus standi and
broaden the definition of aggrieved
person and gave directions and orders".
The Court has further observed that "the
Supreme Court and high Courts earned
great
respect
and
acquired
great
credibility in the eyes of public because of
their innovative efforts to protect and
preserve the fundamental rights of people
belonging to poor and marginalized
section of society.

12. One of the essential aspects of
the procedure laid down by the Court is
that the person who approaches the Court
has to show that he has no personal
interest
in
the
outcome
of
the
proceedings.
A
large
number
of
judgments and the directions of the
Supreme Court in public interest litigation
have benefited the downtrodden and
marginalized section of the society.

13. In the matter of Phase-II deals
with the protection, preservation of
2 All. Rahul Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. & Ors.
1447
ecology, environment, forest, wildlife,
rivers etc. Now there is a large number of
judgments of the Supreme Court, where
several important directions have been
issued for protection of the environment.
These judgments have gone long away to
protect the environment and to deal with
the problem of pollution and also to
preserve the natural resources of the
country. In the matter of environment, the
Court has applied the doctrine of trust.
This doctrine was enunciated in the
present form by the U.S. Courts. It says
that when the State holds a resource that
is available for the use of public, the
Court can exercise its power under the
judicial review to scrutinize the fairness
of the State's action while dealing with the
natural resources.

14. In the third phase the Supreme
Court has widen the horizon of public
interest litigation for maintaining the probity,
transparency and good governance. In a large
number of petitions the Supreme Court has
entertained petitions in respect of governance
of the State. In the case of Shivajirao
Nilangekar Patil v. Dr. Mahesh Madhav
Gosavi and others, the Court has taken a
judicial note about falling standard of public
morality. It was observed that "this Court
cannot be oblivious that there has been a
steady decline of public standard or public
morals and public morale. It is necessary to
cleanse public life in the country along with
or even before cleaning the physical
atmosphere. The pollution in our values and
standard is an equally grave menace as the
pollution of environment, where such
situations cry out, the Court should not and
cannot remain mute and dumb.

15. After summarizing the law on all
the three phases of the public interest
litigation in nicety of detail the Supreme
Court in the case of Balwant Singh
Chaufal (supra), has observed as under:

"31. According to our opinion,
the public interest litigation is an
extremely important jurisdiction exercised
by the Supreme Court and the High
Courts. The Courts in a number of cases
have given important directions and
passed
orders
which
have
brought
positive changes in the country. The
Courts'
directions
have
immensely
benefited marginalized sections of the
society in a number of cases. It has also
helped in protection and preservation of
ecology, environment, forests, marine life,
wildlife, etc. etc. The Court's directions to
some extent have helped in maintaining
probity and transparency in the public
life.
 ***
*** ***

87. ...The court in that case
gave emphasis that the directions of the
court should meet the requirements of
public interest, environmental protection,
elimination of pollution and sustainable
development. While ensuring sustainable
development, it must be kept in view that
there is no danger to the environment or
to the ecology.
 ***
*** ***

143. 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 bonafide
public
interest
litigation
must
be
encouraged whereas frivolous public
interest litigation should be discouraged.
In our considered opinion, we have to
1448 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 nonmonetary directions issued by the courts.
 ***
*** ***

148. The first category of cases
is that where the Court on the filing of
frivolous
public
interest
litigation
petitions, dismissed the petitions with
exemplary costs. In Neetu v. State of
Pubjab, AIR 2007 SC 758, the Court
concluded that it is necessary to impose
exemplary costs to ensure that the
message goes in the right direction that
petitions filed with oblique motive do not
have the approval of the courts.
 ***
*** ***

157. In Holicow Pictures (P)
Ltd. v. Prem Chandra Mishra, (2007) 14
SCC 281, this Court observed as under:

"10. '... 12. It is depressing to
note that on account of such trumpery
proceedings initiated before the courts,
innumerable days are wasted, which time
otherwise could have been spent for the
disposal cases of the genuine litigants.
Though we spare no efforts in fostering
and developing the laudable concept of
PIL and extending our long arm of
sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the
oppressed
and
the
needy
whose
fundamental rights are infringed and
violated
and
whose
grievances
go
unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard;
yet we cannot avoid but express our
opinion that while genuine litigants with
legitimate grievances relating to civil
matters
involving
properties
worth
hundreds of millions of rupees and
criminal
cases
in
which
persons
sentenced to death facing gallows under
untold agony and persons sentenced to
life
imprisonment
and
kept
in
incarceration for long years, persons
suffering from undue delay in service
matters - government or private, persons
awaiting the disposal of cases wherein
huge amounts of public revenue or
unauthorized collection of tax amounts
are locked up, detenu expecting their
release from the detention orders, etc. etc.
are all standing in a long serpentine
queue for years with the fond hope of
getting into the courts and having their
grievances redressed, the busybodies,
meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or
officious interveners having absolutely no
public interest except for personal gain or
private profit either of themselves or as a
proxy of others or for any other
extraneous motivation or for glare of
publicity, break the queue muffing their
faces by wearing the mask of public
interest litigation and get into the courts
by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions
and thus criminally waste the valuable
time of the courts and as a result of which
the queue standing outside the doors of
the courts never moves, which piquant
situation creates frustration in the minds
of the genuine litigants and resultantly
they loose faith in the administration of
our judicial system.' "

158. The Court cautioned by
observing that [Holicow case, (2007) 14
SCC 281]:

"10. '... 13. 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 armory of law
for delivering social justice to the citizens.
2 All. Rahul Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. & Ors.
1449
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 publicity
oriented or founded on personal vendetta.
...
 ***
*** ***

172. In M/s Holicow Pictures
(P) Ltd., (2007) 14 SCC 281, this Court
observed that the Judges who exercise the
jurisdiction should be extremely careful to
see that behind the beautiful veil of PIL,
an ugly private malice, vested interest
and/or publicity - seeking is not lurking.
The court should ensure that there is no
abuse of the process of the court.
 ***
*** ***

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.
 ***
*** ***

(3) The Courts should prima
facie verify the credentials of the
petitioner before entertaining a P.I.L.

(4) The Court should be prima
facie satisfied regarding the correctness
of the contents of the petition before
entertaining a PIL.

(5) The Court should be fully
satisfied that substantial public interest is
involved before entertaining the petition.

(6) The Court 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 Court 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. The Courts must encourage
genuine and bonafide PIL, which has
been filed for redressal of genuine public
harm or public injury in the following
matters:

(i) Lack of probity in public life
leading to degree of corruption; good
governance,
judicial
review
of
administrative action;

(ii)
Environmental
matters
dealing with air pollution, water pollution,
illegal mining, felling of trees, pollution
of rivers etc.; the encroachment of public
utility land such as Park and open space
reserved in the town planning, forest land,
illegal exploitation natural resources.

(iii) Power of superior courts to
make investigation into the issue of public
importance.

(iv) Those PILs which involve
larger public interest should be heard on
priority basis.
1450 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

17. However, the Court has also
opined that the frivolous petition must be
dealt with firm hand and should be
discouraged by imposing heavy cost.

18. Bearing in mind the principles
and the directions issued by the Supreme
Court in the above noted cases, we find
that this Court can broadly classify the
following categories of public interest
litigation which are generally filed in this
Court:

(i)
for
the
removal
of
encroachments on public path mostly in
villages or small towns;

(ii) for compliance of the
provisions of the Corporation Act, 1959;
Municipalities Act, 1916, Town Area Act;
Nagar Panchayat Act; RBO Act, 1958. In
this category of public interest litigation,
generally the reliefs are sought for the
removal
of
encroachment;
for
the
demolition of buildings which have been
raised without proper sanction under the
relevant Act and Byelaws.

(iii) for the compliance of
directions issued by the Supreme Court in
the matter of removal of encroachment
from the ponds.

(iv)
Environmental
matters
regarding illegal running of Brick kilns.
felling of trees, water related problems.

19. Firstly, we will advert to the
matters relating to the environment. As
discussed above in the second phase of
the PIL, the Supreme Court has issued a
large number of directions in its various
judgement. In the case of Indian Council
for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of
India and others, the Court has observed
that
High
Courts
should
shoulder
responsibility to ensure that directions
issued by the Supreme Court in the
matters of protection of the environment
are complied with by the authorities. The
Court has further observed that High
Courts are better placed to appreciate the
problems of their geographical area. It is
constitutional obligation of the Courts to
protect the fundamental rights of the
people. The Supreme Court has reminded
the
High
Courts
that
it
is
their
responsibility that in the cases where the
directions
of
Supreme
court
have
ramification all over country, High Courts
should ensure for compliance of those
directions. Following discussion and
conclusion are apt and relevant for our
purpose:

"41. With rapid industrialisation
taking place, there is an increasing threat
to the maintenance of the ecological
balance. The general public is becoming
aware of the need to protect environment.
Even though, laws have been passed for
the
protection
of
environment,
the
enforcement of the same has been tardy,
to say the least. With the governmental
authorities not showing any concern with
the enforcement of the said Acts, and with
the development taking place for personal
gains at the expense of environment and
with
disregard
of
the
mandatory
provisions of law, some public-spirited
persons have been initiating public
interest litigations. The legal position
relating to the exercise of jurisdiction by
the courts for preventing environmental
degradation and thereby, seeking to
protect the fundamental rights of the
citizens, is now well settled by various
decisions of this Court. The primary effort
of the court, while dealing with the
environmental-related issues, is to see
that the enforcement agencies, whether it
be the State or any other authority, take
effective steps for the enforcement of the
2 All. Rahul Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. & Ors.
1451
laws. The courts, in a way, act as the
guardian of the people's fundamental
rights but in regard to many technical
matters, the courts may not be fully
equipped. Perforce, it has to rely on
outside
agencies
for
reports
and
recommendations whereupon orders have
been passed from time to time. Even
though, it is not the function of the court
to see the day-to-day enforcement of the
law, that being the function of the
Executive, but because of the nonfunctioning of the enforcement agencies,
the courts as of necessity have had to pass
orders directing the enforcement agencies
to implement the law.

42. As far as this Court is
concerned,
being
conscious
of
its
constitutional obligation to protect the
fundamental rights of the people, it has
issued directions in various types of cases
relating to the protection of environment
and preventing pollution. For effective
orders to be passed, so as to ensure that
there can be protection of environment
along with development, it becomes
necessary for the court dealing with such
issues
to
know
about
the
local
conditions.