Court No. - 21
Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 404 of 2019 Petitioner :- Mahendra Prasad Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bijendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the following relief:
"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to respondent the construct the pathway after removing encroachment by the person those are encroached are restrained for construction.
II. Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus commanding to the respondent to clear the pathway after its demarcation by measurement of Gata No. 568, 557 and 558 which is connected with the aforesaid pathway."
We are of the view that in such petty matters the public interest litigation should not be encouraged. The issue raised by the petitioner can be considered under the relevant statute for removal of the encroachment from the public path. This Court is already overburdened with the huge pendency of the cases. Encouraging the writ petitions for such petty matters will further aggravate the situation. The Supreme Court in the case of Phool Chandra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 112, has held that the time has come when frivolous petitions should be dealt with firm hands and the High Courts should not entertain the petty matters.
In the present case, we do not find any issue which has been raised of the public importance or which has not been settled with the authoritative pronouncement of this Court.
Section 25 of the U.P. Revenue Code provides rights of way and other easements. Section 26 of the Code deals with removal of obstacle. In addition to above, Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code also provides for removal of nuisance. The petitioner without resorting to the remedy provided in the aforesaid statutes has approached this Court in public interest litigation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a representation before the authority concerned but no action has been taken thereon.
We hope and trust that if any representation has been made under the provisions of the aforesaid statues, the authority concerned shall look into the matter and pass the appropriate order in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 22.2.2019 SKT/-