Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2016 (ALL)

Raj Kumar v. State of U. P.

2014-07-10

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, DILIP GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J. An order of cancellation of a fair price shop was challenged by the fourth respondent. By an order dated 31 March 2014, the appeal was allowed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Bareilly Division, Bareilly. The subsequent allottee of the fair price shop unsuccessfully questioned the legality of that order by filing a writ petition, being Writ - C No. 27428 of 2014 (Surajan Singh Vs. State of U.P. & 3 Ors.). The petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on 16 May 2014, holding that the subsequent allottee did not have any locus to challenge the order by which the fair price shop of the original allottee was restored. Now, this petition in the public interest has been filed. 2. The petitioners have not made the mandatory disclosure as required by sub-rule (3-A) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the High Court Rules, which was mandated following the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors.1. 3. A cautionary note has been indicated in a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shiva Kirti Singh (as His Lordship then was) and one of us (Justice Dilip Gupta) in Chhotey Lal Gandhi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.2 in regard to the Court entertaining a PIL in relation to a dispute over a fair price shop. The Division Bench observed as follows: “This Court has came across larger number of writ petitions abeled as Public Interest Litigation in which business rivals or persons known to the fair price shop dealer come up with a grievance that the fair price shop dealer should be punished or should be deprived of dealership on account of some irregularities in the allotment of fair price shop or distribution of food-grains. Such writ petitions take up lot of valuable time of this Court and ultimately this Court, in majority of such cases, is left with a clear impression that the litigation was not really in public interest but for seeking some other advantage or for wreaking vengeance. In matters of Public Interest Litigation the Court has to be extra cautious and should not permit adversarial litigation to enter the Superior Courts in the garb of Public Interest Litigation.” 4. We are not inclined to entertain the petition ostensibly filed in the public interest. In matters of Public Interest Litigation the Court has to be extra cautious and should not permit adversarial litigation to enter the Superior Courts in the garb of Public Interest Litigation.” 4. We are not inclined to entertain the petition ostensibly filed in the public interest. The petitioners have not disclosed their locus or credentials as mandated by the High Court Rules. They cannot be regarded as being persons aggrieved. A PIL on the subject is not maintainable. 5. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.