Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 636 (ALL)

Priyadeep Sharma v. State of U. P.

2015-03-30

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. The petition has been filed purportedly in the public interest by a person stated to be an advocate practising in the district court at Ghaziabad. The relief which he seeks is in respect of the alleged sale of land by the fifth respondent which is a public limited company. The basis of the writ petition is that on 21 October 1965, an agreement was entered into under Section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 under which the land was made available to Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited. According to the petitioner, Clause 4 (h) of the agreement contained the prohibition on the sale and alienation of the land except with the previous sanction of the State Government. However, on the basis of a sale-deed which is annexed at Annexure-4, the case of the petitioner is that the fifth respondent is alienating some part of the land in violation of the terms of the agreement under Section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. 2. At the outset, we must note that the only averment in respect of the locus of the petitioner is in ground- f. 1. of the writ petition where it is stated that the petitioner is an advocate practising in the district court at Ghaziabad and a social activist. A supplementary affidavit has been filed in order to comply with the provisions of sub-rule (3A) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules 1952 which was inserted following the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others, reported in 2010 AIR SCW 1029. But even in the supplementary affidavit, there is no factual disclosure of the bona fides, credentials or track record of the petitioner. The requirement of sub-rule (3A) of Rule 1 cannot be fulfilled merely by reciting the provisions of the Rules but a factual basis has to be set out in the pleadings that is indicative to the Court that the petitioner in the PIL is a bona fide litigant. Otherwise such proceedings can be utilized for pursuing extraneous purposes and the PIL jurisdiction can be misused. 3. In the present case, we also find that the Commissioner of Labour had addressed a letter on 20 May 2011 to the Collector, Ghaziabad raising the issue. Otherwise such proceedings can be utilized for pursuing extraneous purposes and the PIL jurisdiction can be misused. 3. In the present case, we also find that the Commissioner of Labour had addressed a letter on 20 May 2011 to the Collector, Ghaziabad raising the issue. Thereafter, following a representation by the Modi Nagar Karamchari Residents Welfare Society, the Union Government through the Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation (Housing Section) addressed a communication on 1 November 2013 to the Secretary in the Urban Development Department of the State Government. 4. In this view of the matter, it is clear that an appropriate inquiry is being carried out by the State. That being the position, we leave it open to the petitioner to pursue that inquiry though we clarify that we are not inclined to issue any direction in these proceedings for the reasons mentioned above particularly in the absence of the fifth respondent. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.