# Sabhajeet Singh [P.I.L] Criminal v. State of U.P., Thru. Prin. Secy., Home & others

- **Citation:** (2012) 1 ILRA 207
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-02-15
- **Case number:** Misc. Bench No. 11510 of 2011
- **Bench:** Imtiyaz Murtaza, D. K. Upadhyaya
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sabhajeet-singh-p-i-l-criminal-v-state-of-u-p-thru-prin-secy-home-others-42100
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Article 226-Public
Interest
Litigation-without
disclosing
credentials without description of public
cause going to expose-without fulfillment
of-provision
of
Allahabad
High
Court
(Amendment) Rules 2010, Chapter XXII
Rule 1 (3-A)-held-in absence of credible
locus-petition filed not in larger Public
Interest-needs dismissal.

Held: Para 14 and 15

In the light of aforesaid observations made
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases
of Balwant Singh Chaufal and others
(supra) and M/s Holicow Pictures Pvt Ltd
(supra), the Court opines that fulfillment of
the
requirement
of
the
amendment
inserted in the High Court Rules vide
notification dated 01.05.2010 should not
be taken lightly. Rules have been framed
for being adhered to. Any person filing
Public Interest Litigation has to satisfy the
Court that he has a credible locus and also
that he has filed the writ petition in larger
public interest. In the instant case, the
writ petition does not disclose even a
single word about the credentials of the
petitioner and his antecedents.

In view of above observations, the Court
comes to the irresistible conclusion that
for want of fulfillment of the requirement
of Allahabad High Court (Amendment)
Rules, 2010, the writ petition needs to be
dismissed.
Case law discussed:
2010 AIR SCW 1029; AIR 2008 Supreme Court
913

## Text

1 All] Sabhajeet Singh [P.I.L] Criminal V. State of U.P., Thru. Prin. Secy., Home & others

207
against all concerned persons including
petitioner as well as the officials of
department whom he has found to have
acted in collusion to help the petitioner to
get his appointment validated by playing
fraud and misrepresentation and also
committing forgery in the documents. The
report shall be lodged by respondent no. 2
within 10 days from today. Thereafter the
concerned police authorities shall make
appropriate investigation in accordance with
law and submit progress report before this
Court after one month thereafter. Only for
this purpose this matter shall be listed
before this Court on 03.04.2012.

14. Subject to above directions, this
writ petition is dismissed with costs, which I
quantify to Rs. 25,000/-.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 15.02.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE IMTIYAZ MURTAZA,J.
THE HON'BLE D. K. UPADHYAYA,J.

Misc. Bench No. 11510 of 2011

Sabhajeet Singh [ P.I.L. ] Criminal

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P., Thru. Prin. Secy., Home &
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Surya Kant

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.
Sri Lalit Shukla
Sri O.P. Srivastava
Sri Manish Mathur

Constitution of India, Article 226-Public
Interest
Litigation-without
disclosing
credentials without description of public
cause going to expose-without fulfillment
of-provision
of
Allahabad
High
Court
(Amendment) Rules 2010, Chapter XXII
Rule 1 (3-A)-held-in absence of credible
locus-petition filed not in larger Public
Interest-needs dismissal.

Held: Para 14 and 15

In the light of aforesaid observations made
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases
of Balwant Singh Chaufal and others
(supra) and M/s Holicow Pictures Pvt Ltd
(supra), the Court opines that fulfillment of
the
requirement
of
the
amendment
inserted in the High Court Rules vide
notification dated 01.05.2010 should not
be taken lightly. Rules have been framed
for being adhered to. Any person filing
Public Interest Litigation has to satisfy the
Court that he has a credible locus and also
that he has filed the writ petition in larger
public interest. In the instant case, the
writ petition does not disclose even a
single word about the credentials of the
petitioner and his antecedents.

In view of above observations, the Court
comes to the irresistible conclusion that
for want of fulfillment of the requirement
of Allahabad High Court (Amendment)
Rules, 2010, the writ petition needs to be
dismissed.
Case law discussed:
2010 AIR SCW 1029; AIR 2008 Supreme Court
913

(Delivered by Hon'ble D.K.Upadhyaya,J.)

1. The instant writ petition styled as
Public Interest Litigation has been filed with
the following reliefs:-

"1. to issue a suitable order or
direction or writ in the nature of mandamus
commanding the opposite parties no. 1 to 6
to punish the opposite party no.7 and 8 and
initiate the criminal proceeding against him
in the light of the averments made in this
writ petition.
208 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

2. to issue a suitable order or direction
or writ which this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit, just and proper direct the opposite party
no. 1 to 6 to recover the emoluments and
other facilities drawn by the opposite party
no.8 as Minister and Member of the
Legislative Council which the opposite
party no.8 has caused to the State
Exchequer.

3. to issue a suitable order or direction
or writ directing the opposite parties no. 1
to 6 to act positively and quickly in the
matter and sent the cheater/opposite party
no.8 behind the bars and refer the matter to
the CBI or any other agency which this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.

4. any other order or direction which
this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper
under the circumstances of the case and for
protecting the interest of the petitioner may
also be awarded to the petitioner and
against the opposite parties."

2. A perusal of the aforequoted
prayers made in the writ petition reveal that
the petitionr has sought relief for issuance of
a writ in the nature of mandamus to punish
the opposite party nos. 7 & 8 and to initiate
criminal proceedings against them in the
light of averments made in the writ petition.
The petitioner has also prayed that the
emoluments and other facilities drawn from
the State Exchequer by the opposite party
no.8 as Minister in the State Government
and also as Member of Legislative Council
of Uttar Pradesh be also ordered to be
recovered. The petitioner has further prayed
that the matter be referred to CBI or any
other agency for inquiry.

3. The allegations made in the writ
petition are to the effect that opposite party
no.7, Ram Charan Kushwaha, son of Late
Bhagwat Prasad Kushwaha and opposite
party no.8, Babu Singh Kushwaha, son of
Late Bhagwat Prasad Kushwaha are one
and the same person. That opposite party
no.7, Ram Charan Kushwaha contested the
election of U.P. Legislative Council using
false name of Babu Singh Kushwaha and
after getting elected as member of
Legislative Council he got a berth in the
Cabinet of the State Government. That the
aforesaid act of opposite party no.7
contesting the election bearing false name is
a fraud and hence, authorities be directed to
recover the emoluments and other facilities
drawn by opposite party no.7 as Minister in
the State and also as Member of Legislative
Council.

4. It has further been averred by the
petitioner that the opposite party no.7 by
contesting the election in the name of Babu
Singh Kushwaha has defrauded the Election
Commission and the State of U.P., which is
an offence, for which opposite party nos. 7
and 8 be punished.

5. Heard Sri Surya Kant, learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner,
learned
Government Advocate for opposite party
no.1, Sri Lalit Shukla, learned counsel for
the opposite party no.3 and Sri Manish
Mathur, learned counsel for the opposite
party no.4.

6. We have also perused the
documents available on record.

7. While dealing with the issue raised
by the petitioner in the instant writ petition,
the Court confronted the learned counsel for
the petitioner, Sri Surya Kant with a query
as to whether while filing the instant writ
petition, the affidavit as required to be filed
by a person intending to file Public Interest
Litigation under the newly inserted sub-rule
1 All] Sabhajeet Singh [P.I.L] Criminal V. State of U.P., Thru. Prin. Secy., Home & others

209
3 A in Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the
Allahabad High Court Rules 1952 has been
filed? On the said query made by the Court,
the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner could not furnish any satisfactory
reply. As a matter of fact, in the entire writ
petition, no averments regarding the
credentials of the petitioner have been
made, neither has it been stated by him that
the writ petition has been filed to espouse
some public cause and further that he does
not have any personal or private interest in
the matter.

8. While noticing the development of
Public Interest Litigation and historically
analysing the same and elaborating the duty
and the authority enjoined on the Superior
Courts, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of State of Uttranchal vs Balwant Singh
Chaufal and others, reported in 2010 AIR
SCW 1029, requested the High Courts to
frame rules for dealing with Public Interest
Litigations. Hon'ble Supreme Court while
noticing the need of encouraging genuine
and bonafide PILs also emphasized that
PILs for extraneous considerations and with
oblique motives should be discouraged and
curbed. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the said judgment have
also observed that before entertaining a PIL,
the courts should prima facie verify the
credentials of the petitioner and also that the
court should be satisfied regarding the
correctness of the contents of the petition.
The said directions by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of Uttranchal vs
Balwant Singh Chaufal and others (supra)
have been given in para 198 of the
judgment which is being reproduced
hereinbelow:-

"198. 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
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 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
210 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

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."

9. In view of the aforesaid directions
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Rule 3 A in
Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Rules of the
Court has been inserted by notifying the
Allahabad High Court (Amendment) Rules,
2010. The aforesaid newly inserted rule has
been framed by this Court to achieve the
objective of framing of Rules as directed by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State
of Uttranchal vs Balwant Singh Chaufal
and others (supra).

10. The notification dated 01.05.2010
whereby
Allahabad
High
Court
(Amendment) Rules 2010 was notified is
being reproduced hereinbelow:-

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
ALLAHABAD
AMENDMENT SECTION

NOTIFICATION
No.105/VIIIc-2 Dated May 1, 2010

Correction Slip No.241

In
exercising
of
the
powers
conferred by Article 225 of the
Constitution of India and all other
powers enabling it in this behalf, the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
is pleased to make the following
amendment in Chapter XXII of the
Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952
Volume I with effect from the date of
it's Publication in the Official Gazette;

THE
ALLAHABAD
HIGH
COURT
(AMENDMENT)
RULES,
2010

In the Allahabad High Court
Rules, 1952 the following sub rule (3A)
in Rule 1 of Chapter XXII shall be
inserted :-

" (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 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."

EXPLANATORY NOTE

This is not a part of the sub-rule
(3A) but is intended to indicate its
general purport)

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in its judgment in CA No. 11341135/02 State of Uttaranchal Versus
Balwant Singh Chaufal and others
reported in 2010 AIR, SCW, 1029 has
observed that in the process of Court is
frequently abused in the name of
1 All] Sabhajeet Singh [P.I.L] Criminal V. State of U.P., Thru. Prin. Secy., Home & others

211
Public Interest Litigation and has
directed all the High Court to frame
rules
or
prevent
the
same.
The
aforesaid amendment is intended to
achieve the said object.

By order of the Court.
Sd. Dinesh Gupta
Registrar General

11. The first question which needs to
be examined by the Court in the instant writ
petition is as to whether in the light of
requirement of Allahabad High Court
(Amendment) Rules 2010, if a person
approaching the Court in a Public Interest
Litigation does not disclose his credentials
and also does not disclose as to what public
cause is he seeking to espouse, the writ
petition should be entertained in the light of
the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of Uttranchal vs
Balwant Singh Chaufal and others (supra).

12. A perusal of the entire averments
made in the writ petition unambiguously
disclose that the petitioner has not even
murmured a whisper about his credentials.
He has not stated as to which public cause is
he seeking to espouse and further that result
of the litigation will not lead to any undue
gain to himself or anyone associated with
him. In absence of any averment made by
the petitioner regarding his credentials, it is
abundantly clear that the petitioner has not
fulfilled the requirement of Allahabad High
Court (Amendment) Rules 2010. The Court
may emphasize here that the Allahabad
High Court Rules 1952 were amended by
means of notification dated 01.05.2010 not
as a mere formality but requirement of
observance envisaged by the newly inserted
sub-rule 3 A in Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of
the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 has
an object sought to be achieved as directed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said
object which is sought to be achieved by the
Allahabad High Court (Amendment) Rules
2010 is to ensure that frivolous PILs and the
PILs
being
filed
for
extraneous
considerations and with oblique motive are
discouraged and tendency of flooding the
courts with such PILs by persons without
disclosure of their credentials be curbed.

13. The directions issued by the
Hon'ble Court in the case of State of
Uttranchal vs Balwant Singh Chaufal and
others (supra) are to be followed with the
objective of maintaining the purity of the
stream of justice. The Public Interest
Litigation is an instrument to be used by the
Courts to achieve genuine public interest. It
should not be permitted to be used as a
weapon to farther any private, malicious or
vested interest. Thus, it has to be used with
great care and circumspection. Another
factor which needs to be taken into account
is the time of the Court which is lost in
dealing with such proceedings which are
frivolous in nature and not aimed at
achieving any genuine cause having wider
public interest. In this regard, reference can
be made to the observations made by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s
Holicow Pictures Pvt Ltd. vs Prem
Chandra Mishra and others, reported in
AIR 2008 Supreme Court 913 wherein
Hon'ble Supreme Court putting a word of
caution has observed as under:-

"16. In subsequent paras of the said
judgment, it was observed as follows:

"It is thus clear that only a person
acting bona fide and having sufficient
interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone
have as locus standing and can approach
the Court to wipe out the tears of the poor
and needy, suffering from violation of
212 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

their fundamental rights, but not a person
for personal gain or private profit or
political
motive
or
any
oblique
consideration.
Similarly
a
vexatious
petition under the colour of PIL, brought
before the Court for vindicating any
personal grievance, deserves rejection at
the threshold".

17. It is depressing to note that on
account of such trumpery proceedings
initiated before the Courts, innumerable
days are wasted, the time which otherwise
could have been spent for disposal of 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, un-represented 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 released 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.

18. 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. 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. As indicated above, Court must
be careful to see that a body of persons or
member of 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
1 All] Sabhajeet Singh [P.I.L] Criminal V. State of U.P., Thru. Prin. Secy., Home & others

213
themselves. Often they are actuated by a
desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity.
The petitions of such busy bodies deserves
to be thrown out by rejection at the
threshold, and in appropriate cases with
exemplary costs.

XXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX

20.The Court has to be satisfied about
(a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the
prima facie correctness or nature of
information given by him; (c) the
information
being
not
vague
and
indefinite. The information should show
gravity and seriousness involved. Court
has to strike balance between two
conflicting interests; (i) nobody should be
allowed to indulge in wild and reckless
allegations besmirching the character of
others; and (ii) avoidance of public
mischief
and
to
avoid
mischievous
petitions seeking to assail, for oblique
motives, justifiable executive actions. In
such case, however, the Court cannot
afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely
careful to see that under the guise of
redressing a public grievance, it does not
encroach upon the sphere reserved by the
Constitution to the Executive and the
Legislature. The Court has to act
ruthlessly while dealing with imposters
and busybodies or meddlesome interlopers
impersonating as public-spirited holy men.
They masquerade as crusaders of justice.
They pretend to act in the name of Pro
Bono Publico, though they have no
interest of the public or even of their own
to protect."

14. In the light of aforesaid
observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the cases of Balwant Singh
Chaufal and others (supra) and M/s
Holicow Pictures Pvt Ltd (supra), the Court
opines that fulfillment of the requirement of
the amendment inserted in the High Court
Rules vide notification dated 01.05.2010
should not be taken lightly. Rules have been
framed for being adhered to. Any person
filing Public Interest Litigation has to satisfy
the Court that he has a credible locus and
also that he has filed the writ petition in
larger public interest. In the instant case, the
writ petition does not disclose even a single
word about the credentials of the petitioner
and his antecedents.

`
15. In view of above observations, the
Court comes to the irresistible conclusion
that for want of fulfillment of the
requirement of Allahabad High Court
(Amendment) Rules, 2010, the writ petition
needs to be dismissed.

16. However, the Court during the
course of hearing proceeded to examine the
averments made in the writ petition. On
being asked as to what offence, which can
be said to be constituted even as per
averments made in the writ petition, has
been committed by the private respondent,
for which he can be punished or in respect
of which criminal proceedings against him
can be initiated, learned counsel for the
petitioner could not satisfy the Court. Even
otherwise, the allegations made in the writ
petition are only to the effect that the private
Respondent while contesting the election of
U.P. State Legislative Council in the year
2006 used the name of Babu Singh
Kushwaha. It is not a case of impersonation
which can be said to have resulted into
some kind of illegal benefit to the private
Respondent.

17. In compliance of the order of this
Court dated 18.11.2011, the Principal
Secretary, Legislative Council, has held an
214 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

inquiry and submitted his report dated
16.12.2011 to this Court which has been
taken on record. The report so submitted by
the Principal Secretary, Legislative Council
says that the private Respondent had
contested the election of Legislative
Council using name of Babu Singh
Kushwaha and he used the said name in all
the papers furnished at the time of his
nomination.

18. The report so submitted by the
Principal Secretary, Legislative Council
needs to be examined against the backdrop
of the allegations made in the writ petition.
The petitioner in the instant writ petition has
stated that on the death of his father,
opposite party no. 7 inherited certain
agricultural land and in the mutation
proceedings,
name
of
the
private
Respondent was recorded in the revenue
records as Ram Charan alias Babu Singh
Kushwaha, son of Bhagwat Prasad. The
said order of mutation in favour of the
private respondent in the style as aforesaid,
was passed by the competent authority on
24.08.2003. Thus, from the averments made
by the petitioner himself, it is clear that the
private Respondent has been using Babu
Singh as his alias since the year 2003 itself.
On a query being made to learned counsel
for the petitioner as to how using of an alias
name constituted an offence, no satisfactory
reply could be given by him.

19. It is also not a case where some
person has withdrawn the emoluments and
other facilities from the State Exchequer
impersonating himself to be some one else.
Thus, the Court finds that the prayer for
recovery of emoluments and other facilities
drawn by the private respondent, in the facts
mentioned
in
the
writ
petition,
is
misconceived. The petitioner himself has
stated that in fact opposite party nos.7 and 8
are the same person. For these reasons,
prayer made by the petitioner for getting
some inquiry conducted into the allegations
made in the writ petition is also not tenable.

20. In the light of foregoing
discussions, this Court comes to the definite
conclusion that the instant writ petition does
not raise any question of larger public cause
so as to call for any interference by this
Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed, however, with no order as to
cost.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.02.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17789 of 1991

Komal Prasad Yadav

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Regional
Manager,
U.P.S.R.T.C
and
others

 ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.K.Jain, Sri Rahul Jain

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.K.Sharma, Sri Sameer Sharma
Sri S.K.Sharma, S.C.

U.P.
Disciplinary
Proceedings(Administrative
Tribunal)Rule 1947: Rule-4-on reference
of Govt. the State Tribunal by impugned
order
imposed
punishment
of
-
compulsory retirement without payment
of gratuity and forfeiture of remaining
dues for period of suspension-without
holding
enquiry-admittedly
the
petitioner
being
employee
of
Corporation-not holding civil post-heldadjudication by Tribunal under 1947
Rules-without jurisdiction-order passed