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

- **Citation:** (2021) 7 ILRA 108
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-06-24
- **Case number:** Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 838 of 2021
- **Bench:** Sanjay Yadav, C.J. Vivek Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rahul-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47145
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. PIL-Evidence Act, 1872 - Article 226 -
presumption of genuineness u/s 81 of the
act, does not give rise to any presumption
of genuineness about news paper reportshence, it is not be treated as proof of facts
in them.(Para 2 to 8)

B. Petitioner failed to substantiate his
claim
through
any
substantial
documentary evidence and has not taken
pains to do proper research on the subject
to collect material which can be said to be
credible in nature. in fact, it is a publicity
oriented litigation.(Para 9)

The petition is dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

108 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and sealing of a sanctioned exit, through
any documentary evidence.

It is admitted position that petitioner's
society has an alternative gate for ingress and
exit.

15. Section 28-A(4) provides for an
alternative statutory remedy to a person
aggrieved of an order made under sub-section
(1) or sub-section (2) to file an appeal to the
Chairman against that order within 30 days
from the date thereof and the Chairman may
after hearing the parties to the appeal either
allow or dismiss the appeal. Thus, it is evident
that there exists an alternative statutory remedy
of appeal against the order dated 01.10.2020,
quashing of which has been prayed by the
petitioner as part of prayer no. 2.

16. Thus, both in view of availability of
alternative statutory remedy of appeal and as is
evident from the impugned order dated
01.10.2020, that developer of the petitioner's
colony namely, Sri Chaddha, was afforded an
opportunity of hearing, inasmuch as, it is matter
of record (Annexure-1) that Akash Jan Kalyan
Samiti, was given registration on 05.11.2020
and was not in existence, when notices were
issued to the builder/developer in pursuance of
order dated 26.08.2020 passed by a Coordinate
Bench and said builder/developer was afforded
an opportunity of hearing, therefore, it cannot
be said that petitioner, who were not in
existence were required to be heard before
passing of order dated 01.10.2020. Thus,
petition being bereft of merits deserves to be
dismissed and is dismissed.
----------
(2021)07ILR A108
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.06.2021

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SANJAY YADAV, C.J.
THE HON'BLE VIVEK AGARWAL, J.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 838 of 2021

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Daya Shankar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. PIL-Evidence Act, 1872 - Article 226 -
presumption of genuineness u/s 81 of the
act, does not give rise to any presumption
of genuineness about news paper reportshence, it is not be treated as proof of facts
in them.(Para 2 to 8)

B. Petitioner failed to substantiate his
claim
through
any
substantial
documentary evidence and has not taken
pains to do proper research on the subject
to collect material which can be said to be
credible in nature. in fact, it is a publicity
oriented litigation.(Para 9)

The petition is dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Laxmi Raj Shetty & anr. Vs St. of T.N. AIR
(1988) SC 1274, para-5

2. B. Singh Vs U.O.I. & ors AIR (2004) SC 1923
( 1924, 1929)

3. Ravinder Kumar Sharma Vs St. of Assam
(1999) 7 SCC 435,

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for
the State.

2. This petition has been filed by an
individual claiming himself to be a general
7 All. Rahul Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
109
member of the village & Post-Sdhauna,
Mehnajpur,
Tehsil-Lalganj,
DistrictAzamgarh presently residing at Avadhoot
Bhagwan Ram Kushth Sewa Ashram,
Jalilpur, Chandauli, District-Chandauli for
issuance of "a writ order or direction in the
nature of mandamus commanding the
respondent authorities to enquire the matter
against respondent no.6 under Public
Money Recovery Act and etc. Act and also
recovered the money from him, which was
taken under the Members of Parliament
Local
Area
Development
(M.P.L.A.D.)/M.L.A.
(Member
of
Legislative
Assembly)
Scheme
in
accordance with law."

3. We requested learned counsel for
the petitioner to provide us some material
in the form of an Audit Report of the
Comptroller and Auditor General or any
other competent authority, which may have
been taken as bedrock for this petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that this petition has been filed on the basis
of a news paper cutting published on 8th
July, 2020 in a vernacular news paper-
'Amar Ujala'.

4. When this Court asked learned
counsel for contesting petitioner to show, as
to whether, such news paper cuttings are
admissible under the provisions of Indian
Evidence Act, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that since it has been
published in a leading vernacular news
paper, it can be treated as piece of
evidence.

5. Learned counsel for the State, on
the other hand, submits that news paper
reports are not admissible in evidence and
this petition is nothing but a misuse of the
process of the forum of Public Interest
Litigation (PIL).

6. After hearing learned counsel for
contesting parties and going through the
pleadings, it is evident that provisions of
Section 81 of the Evidence Act, even when
read in totality then also the presumption of
genuineness attached under Section 81 to a
news paper report, cannot be treated as
proof of the facts reported therein.

7. In case of Laxmi Raj Shetty and
another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu; AIR
1988 SC 1274, para-5, it is held that facts
stated in a news paper are hearsay in
nature. They are inadmissible in evidence
unless maker of statement is examined.
Judicial notice of facts stated in news paper
cannot also be taken.

8. In case of B.Singh Vs. Union of
India and others; AIR 2004 SC 1923
(1924, 1929), it is held that petitioner not
claiming to have any personal knowledge
of allegations made against respondent in
said representation and paper cuttings of
news item and is also not aware of
authenticity or otherwise of news item; the
news paper report per se, not admissible in
evidence.
Supreme
Court
held
that
petitioner is busy body bent upon self
publicity. No element of public interest
involved in the petition and dismissed the
petition filed with oblique motive as
misconceived
with
exemplary
costs.
Supreme Court further held that it is open
for court to examine the locus standi of
petitioner to veil on public interest and see
private malice etc. lurking behind it.
Similarly, in case of Ravinder Kumar
Sharma Vs. State of Assam; (1999) 7 SCC
435, it has been held that presumption of
110 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
genuineness created under Section 81 of
the Evidence Act does not give rise to any
presumption of genuineness about news
paper reports and it is not to be treated as
proof of facts stated in them. Such
statements are merely hearsay.

9. Thus, in view of said legal position,
when petitioner has failed to substantiate his
claim through any substantial documentary
evidence and has not taken pains to do proper
research on the subject to collect material
which can said to be credible in nature, we
are not persuaded to accept this petition as
Public Interest Litigation (PIL), but are
constrained to term it as a publicity oriented
litigation, which needs to be curtailed and
grafted in its root. Therefore, petition fails
and is dismissed with cost of Rs.20,000/-
----------
(2021)07ILR A110
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 01.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

Rent Control No. 11921 of 2017

Mukesh @ Lallu Saxena & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
A.D.J.(Essential Commodities Act) Hardoi
& Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Anuj Dayal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Anurag Narain

Suit for ejectment-as tenancy got terminatedRevisional Court allowed the revision -directed
to vacate the shop-and give peaceful possession
to the lanlord-challenged-questions framed were
answered based upon evidence recorded by the
trial court-no fresh evidence taken-no infirmity
in impugned order.

Held, It is settled law that jurisdiction in SCC
Revision is greater than the jurisdiction under
Section 115 C.P.C. and less that of as appeal.
(para 22)

W.P. dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Allah Bux Vs Ist A.D,J, & ors., AIR 1996
Allahabad 49

2. Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs Jawahar Lal Bhatia,
(1996) 28 ALR, 518

3. Abul Alim Vs D.J., Jhansi & ors. 1995(2)
Allahabad Rent Case, 52

4. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs
Dilbahar Singh (2014) 9 SCC,78

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta
Chandra, J.)

1. Heard Sri Anuj Dayal, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anurag
Narain, learned counsel for the respondentlandlord.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that
respondent no.2 filed a Suit for ejectment on
13.07.2005 registered as SCC Suit no. 10 of
2005 on the ground that respondent no.2 and
the wife of his brother Vedrani purchased the
property in question on 22.03.1984 and after
the death of Vedrani, the respondent alone is
the legal heir and owner and landlord of the
shop in question. Respondent no.2 had let out
one shop (herein referred to as shop in
question) to the father of the petitioners in
1985 on rent at the rate of Rs. 275/- per
month which included house tax and water
tax.The father of the petitioner had paid rent
as well as house tax and water tax till 30th
June,2001.The father of the petitioners