# Vision India Welfare Trust, Inderlok, New Delhi v. U.O.I. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 12 ILRA 239
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-11-18
- **Case number:** Public Interest Litigation (P.I.L.) No. 1816 of 2022
- **Bench:** Pritinker Diwaker, J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vision-india-welfare-trust-inderlok-new-delhi-v-u-o-i-ors-48008
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

High Court Rules,1952 - SubRule (3-A) of
Rule 1, Chapter XXII of the Rules of Court
- Rule 1(3-A) of Chapter XXII of the Rules
requires the petitioner to establish its
credentials
by
affidavit
-
Petitioner
seeking to file a Public Interest Litigation,
should precisely and specifically state, in
the affidavit to be sworn by him giving his
credentials - In the instant case, in
paragraph no. 5 of the petition only this
much was pleaded 'that the petitioner is a
social trust and is not politically motivated
by any political party nor have been
financed by any person/ political party to
file this PIL' - Held - contents of the writ
petition
show
no
more
than
a
paraphrasing of the contents of Sub-Rule
(3-A) of Rule 1 - no facts pleaded vis-à-vis
any of the requirements which the Rule
postulates to maintain a petition in public
interest - Petitioner does not say as to
what kind of activities does the petitioner
- 'Vision India Welfare Trust' undertakes,
what has it done in the past towards
charity or the realization of charitable
objectives that it may have set for itself -
Not a word has been said by the petitioner
about any specific activities that it has
undertaken in the past - In the absence of
that, a bald assertion, would not satisfy
the first part of Rule 1(3-A) of Chapter
XXII that requires the petitioner to
establish its credentials by affidavit. (Para
6, 7, 8, 9)

B. Public Interest Litigation - Allahabad
High Court Rules,1952 - SubRule (3-A) of
Rule 1, Chapter XXII of the Rules of Court
- Rule 1(3-A) require that the petitioner
must show what public cause it seeks to
espouse - Held - There is hardly anything
said about it - Petitioner in no way
satisfies
the
two
essential
parts
of
SubRule (3-A) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of
the Rules of Court.

C. Public Interest Litigation - Service
Matter - except for a writ of quo warranto,
public
interest
litigation
is
not
maintainable
in
service
matters
-
Petitioner
seeks
is
to
question
the
appointment of respondent no.6 as an
Associate Professor in the Department of
Psychology of the University - Held - In
substance, the cause of action involved is
240 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
one of a pure service matter - Petitioner,
which is admittedly a trust, certainly does
not have a private cause of action against
the sixth respondent's selection as an
Associate Professor in the University - It
has not been able to establish what kind
of a public interest it seeks to espouse -
Apart from the principle that that in a
service matter, a PIL just does not lie
(Para 14)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

12 All. Vision India Welfare Trust, Inderlok, New Delhi Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
239
reasonable excuse shall be on the person
who has withdrawn from the society. Since
in the present set of facts, there is no proof
of valid marriage, therefore, the court
below has not committed any error of law
to dismiss the suit. In our view, existence
of a valid marriage is precondition to ask
for relief of restitution of conjugal rights.
In the absence of proof of a valid marriage,
under the facts and circumstances of the
case; the court below has not committed
any error of law to dismiss the suit
observing that mere getting a marriage
certificate from Arya Samaj is not proof of
a valid marriage.

15. For all the reasons aforestated, we
find that the present appeal has no merit
and is, therefore, dismissed with costs.
----------
(2022) 12 ILRA 239
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRITINKER DIWAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Public Interest Litigation (P.I.L.) No. 1816 of
2022

Vision India Welfare Trust, Inderlok, New
Delhi ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Kamlesh Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Shashank Shekhar Singh, Sri
Vinod Kumar Shukla

A. Public Interest Litigation - Allahabad
High Court Rules,1952 - SubRule (3-A) of
Rule 1, Chapter XXII of the Rules of Court
- Rule 1(3-A) of Chapter XXII of the Rules
requires the petitioner to establish its
credentials
by
affidavit
-
Petitioner
seeking to file a Public Interest Litigation,
should precisely and specifically state, in
the affidavit to be sworn by him giving his
credentials - In the instant case, in
paragraph no. 5 of the petition only this
much was pleaded 'that the petitioner is a
social trust and is not politically motivated
by any political party nor have been
financed by any person/ political party to
file this PIL' - Held - contents of the writ
petition
show
no
more
than
a
paraphrasing of the contents of Sub-Rule
(3-A) of Rule 1 - no facts pleaded vis-à-vis
any of the requirements which the Rule
postulates to maintain a petition in public
interest - Petitioner does not say as to
what kind of activities does the petitioner
- 'Vision India Welfare Trust' undertakes,
what has it done in the past towards
charity or the realization of charitable
objectives that it may have set for itself -
Not a word has been said by the petitioner
about any specific activities that it has
undertaken in the past - In the absence of
that, a bald assertion, would not satisfy
the first part of Rule 1(3-A) of Chapter
XXII that requires the petitioner to
establish its credentials by affidavit. (Para
6, 7, 8, 9)

B. Public Interest Litigation - Allahabad
High Court Rules,1952 - SubRule (3-A) of
Rule 1, Chapter XXII of the Rules of Court
- Rule 1(3-A) require that the petitioner
must show what public cause it seeks to
espouse - Held - There is hardly anything
said about it - Petitioner in no way
satisfies
the
two
essential
parts
of
SubRule (3-A) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of
the Rules of Court.

C. Public Interest Litigation - Service
Matter - except for a writ of quo warranto,
public
interest
litigation
is
not
maintainable
in
service
matters
-
Petitioner
seeks
is
to
question
the
appointment of respondent no.6 as an
Associate Professor in the Department of
Psychology of the University - Held - In
substance, the cause of action involved is
240 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
one of a pure service matter - Petitioner,
which is admittedly a trust, certainly does
not have a private cause of action against
the sixth respondent's selection as an
Associate Professor in the University - It
has not been able to establish what kind
of a public interest it seeks to espouse -
Apart from the principle that that in a
service matter, a PIL just does not lie
(Para 14)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs St. of W.B., (2004) 3
SCC 349

2. Hari Bansh Lal Vs Sahodar Prasad Mahto &
ors., (2010) 9 SCC 655,

3. Dr. B. Singh Vs U.O.I. & ors., (2004) 3 SCC 363,

4. Dr. Duryodhan Sahu & ors. Vs Jitendra Kumar
Mishra & ors., (1998) 7 SCC 273

5. Gurpal Singh Vs St. of Pun. & ors., (2005) 5
SCC 136

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker, J.
&
Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra,
learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned
Counsel appearing for the respondents and
perused the material placed on record.

2. The petitioner, Vision India Welfare
Trust, a registered charitable trust as it claims,
has filed this petition through its Treasurer,
Mohd. Ali Ansari, seeking to question the
selection of respondent no.6 as an Associate
Professor in the Department of Psychology,
Algarh Muslim University, Aligarh (for short,
'the University').

3. The petitioner seeks to move this
petition in public interest and asks this Court to
quash the recommendations of the General
Selection Committee held on 25.07.2015 to
the post of Associate Professor in the
Department of Psychology of the University. A
mandamus has also been sought to declare the
appointment of respondent no.6 void ab initio
and direct recovery of salary paid to him on
account of his appointment on the post of
Associate Professor. There is no writ of quo
warranto that the petitioner seeks.

4. Since the petition is one that claims to
be moved in public interest, in our opinion, the
petition must pass muster of Sub-Rule (3-A)
of Rule 1, Chapter XXII of the Rules of Court.
Sub-Rule (3-A) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII
reads :

"(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."

5. Paragraphs Nos. 3 to 6, which are
pleadings made to comply with Sub-Rule (3A) of Rule 1 read:

"3. That at the very outset it is stated
that the petitioner has no selfish motive behind
filing of this petition and he is filing this
petition by way of PIL only in common
interest of public at large.

4. That the petitioner will not get
any profit/ loss by filing the present
petition.
12 All. Vision India Welfare Trust, Inderlok, New Delhi Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
241

5. That the petitioner is a social
trust namely Vision India Welfare Trust and
is not politically motivated by any political
party nor have been financed by any
person/ political party to file this PIL. A
photocopy
of
the
trust
deed
dated
14.11.2008 is being filed herewith and is
marked as Annexure No. 1 to this PIL.

6. That the facts giving arise to
the present public interest litigation are
startling as without any fear and in
collusion with official respondent of the
government, the private respondent has
been recruited as Associate professor,
Department of Psychology of Aligarh
Muslim University."

6. Now, it must be observed at the
outset that Rule 1 (3-A) of Chapter XXII is
no ceremony to be observed by a petitioner,
who moves this Court in public interest. A
petitioner moving this Court in public
interest must substantially comply with the
requirements of the Rule. What we find ex
facie from the averments in Paragraphs
Nos. 3 to 6 of the writ petition is that the
petitioner has hardly done that. The
contents of Paragraph Nos. 3 to 6 of the
writ petition show no more than a
paraphrasing of the contents of Sub-Rule
(3-A) of Rule 1. There is just a reference to
the label of contents that a PIL petitioner
must
satisfy
before
maintaining
his
petition. There are no facts pleaded vis-àvis any of the requirements which the Rule
postulates to maintain a petition in public
interest. The first of the requirements is the
disclosure of the petitioner's credentials. To
that end, the petitioner has said nothing
more than that, that the petitioner is a
charitable trust and is not politically
motivated by any political party nor
financed by any person or political party to
file the present PIL. This, as already said, is
no more a hollow orchestration of one part
of Rule 1(3-A), that is to say, the part
relating to disclosure of credentials.

7. The petitioner does not say by as
much as a whisper about itself, or its office
bearers, what kind of activities does the
Vision India Welfare Trust undertakes,
what has it done in the past towards charity
or the realization of charitable objectives
that it may have set for itself. A copy of the
trust deed, that has been enclosed, appears
to be either a truncated part of the
document or a deed that is so vague that
one cannot make out what the objects of
the trust are. Nothing more in the trust deed
has been said about its objects than that,
that it is a non-political, non-religious and
charitable trust. But, what kind of charity it
proposes to do, the trust deed hardly spells
out. If one were to leave aside the trust
deed and take the petitioner's assertions on
its face value that the petitioner-Trust has
some charitable objectives, the petitioner
was certainly required to show its activities
in the past and what kind of charity it has
undertaken. For example, a Trust with a
charitable object may pursue philanthropic
activities, like taking care of orphans or
providing food and clothing to the needy or
destitutes or ensuring education of children
of economically weaker sections of the
society. It can be innumerable things that
would all account for charitable objectives.

8. The petitioner would, however,
have to state what kind of charity it does in
order to establish their credentials. If it is
the petitioner's object that they go after
corruption in public activities, it would
have to be specifically pleaded and from
instances shown how the petitioner in the
past has worked to chase and weed out
corruption in public life. Not a word has
been said by the petitioner about any
specific activities that it has undertaken in
242 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the past. In the absence of that, a bald
assertion of the kind that finds place in
Paragraph No. 5, in our opinion, would not
satisfy the first part of Rule 1(3-A) of
Chapter XXII that requires the petitioner to
establish its credentials by affidavit.

9. The next part of Rule 1(3-A)
require that the petitioner must show what
public cause it seeks to espouse. There is
hardly anything said about it either. In our
considered opinion, the petitioner in no
way satisfies the two essential parts of SubRule (3-A) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of
the Rules of Court.

10. The other aspect which requires
elucidation is that what the petitioner seeks
is
to
question
the
appointment
of
respondent no.6 as an Associate Professor
in the Department of Psychology of the
University. This right is reserved to a
person, who is aggrieved by this selection.
A reading of the petition leaves an
unmistakable impression on our mind that
the petitioner wants this Court to enter into
the thicket of facts and law about the
validity of the sixth respondent's selection
and appointment as an Associate Professor
in the Department of Psychology of the
University. We could be called upon to do
this by a candidate for the post who had
failed to get selected; not a stranger
claiming to espouse some kind of a
mysterious public interest, that is hardly
spelt out.

11. This Court finds that in substance,
the cause of action involved in the present
writ petition is one of a pure service matter.
This Court cannot ignore the salutary
principle that in service matters, a public
interest litigation does not lie. In this
connection, reference may be made to the
decision of the Supreme Court in Ashok
Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B., (2004) 3
SCC 349. In Ashok Kumar Pandey
(supra), it was observed by the Supreme
Court thus:

"16. As noted supra, a time has
come to weed out the petitions, which
though titled as public interest litigations
are in essence something else. It is
shocking to note that courts are flooded
with a large number of so-called public
interest litigations where even a minuscule
percentage can legitimately be called public
interest litigations. Though the parameters
of public interest litigation have been
indicated by this Court in a large number of
cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions
and objectives, courts are entertaining such
petitions and wasting valuable judicial time
which, as noted above, could be otherwise
utilized for disposal of genuine cases.
Though in Duryodhan Sahu (Dr) v.
Jitendra Kumar Mishra [(1998) 7 SCC 273
: 1998 SCC (L&S) 1802 : AIR 1999 SC
114] this Court held that in service matters
PILs should not be entertained, the inflow
of so-called PILs involving service matters
continues unabated in the courts and
strangely are entertained. The least the
High Courts could do is to throw them out
on the basis of the said decision. The other
interesting aspect is that in the PILs,
official documents are being annexed
without even indicating as to how the
petitioner came to possess them. In one
case, it was noticed that an interesting
answer was given as to its possession. It
was stated that a packet was lying on the
road and when out of curiosity the
petitioner opened it, he found copies of the
official
documents.
Whenever
such
frivolous pleas are taken to explain
possession, the courts should do well not
only to dismiss the petitions but also to
impose exemplary costs. It would be
12 All. State of U.P. Vs. Baiju & Ors.
243
desirable for the courts to filter out the
frivolous petitions and dismiss them with
costs as aforestated so that the message
goes in the right direction that petitions
filed with oblique motive do not have the
approval of the courts."

 (emphasis by Court)

12. In Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar
Prasad Mahto and others, (2010) 9 SCC
655, their Lordships of the Supreme Court,
after considering the decisions in Ashok
Kumar Pandey (supra), Dr. B. Singh v.
Union of India and others, (2004) 3 SCC
363, Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others v.
Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others,
(1998) 7 SCC 273, and Gurpal Singh v.
State of Punjab and others, (2005) 5 SCC
136, held:

"15. The above principles make it
clear that except for a writ of quo warranto,
public interest litigation is not maintainable
in service matters."

13. We have remarked earlier and we
do say again that this petition has not at all
been framed as one for a writ of quo
warranto and neither does it seek that
relief. It does not conform to the
requirements of that writ. It has been styled
and filed as a public interest litigation,
properly so called, with reliefs sought in
the nature of a certiorari (though without
saying so) and a mandamus or directions
akin to these writs.

14.

The
petitioner,
which
is
admittedly a trust, certainly does not have a
private cause of action against the sixth
respondent's selection as an Associate
Professor in the University. It has not been
able to establish what kind of a public
interest it seeks to espouse. This is quite
apart from the principle that we have just
noticed that in a service matter, a PIL just
does not lie.

15. For all these reasons, we do not
find any force in this petition and order it to
stand dismissed.
----------
(2022) 12 ILRA 243
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

Application U/S 378(3) No. 69 of 2013

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Baiju & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Mrs. Smiti Sahai, Additional Government
Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:

A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Section 378 - Appeal Against
Acquittal - Scope - while exercising its
appellate
power,
the
High
Court
is
empowered to reappreciate, review and
reconsider the evidence and this exercise
is to be undertaken in order to come to an
independent conclusion and unless there
are substantial and compelling reasons or
very strong reasons to differ from the
findings of the trial court, the High Court,
as an appellate court in an appeal is not
supposed to substitute its findings in case
the findings recorded by the trial court are
equally plausible. (Para 11)
B. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Sections 154 & 162 -
Second F.I.R. - D.G.P., U.P. circular No.