Court No. - 21
Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1176 of 2019 Petitioner :- Mohd. Tahir Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Afzal Ahmad Khan Durrani,Rahul Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Brijesh Ojha,Pranjal Mehrotra,Vrindavan Mishra
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
The petitioner has preferred this public interest litigation for the following reliefs:
"i- issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining respondent No. 3 & 4 from raising any construction or in any manner from encroaching upon Vijay Park situated in A Block Shalimar Garden Ghaziabad, in contravention of layout plan, particularly in the absence of land use change.
ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No. 8 to take all remedial measures to protect the Vijay Park from being encroached upon by respondent No. 3 & 4 and required to restore Vijay Park to its original position.
iii. issue order or direction to respondents to find out erring officer and consequently impose recovery or damages from such erring officer who are found responsible for the illegal act of encroaching upon Vijay Park for felling green trees."
Our attention has been drawn to an order dated 3.12.2018 passed by National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short, "NGT"), wherein the NGT has taken notice of sewage pumping station being set up at Vijay Park, Shalimar Garden (main), Sahibabad, Ghaziabad.
Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for the eighth respondent submits that in compliance of the order of NGT, the matter is under consideration before the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad. In spite of the said fact the petitioner has preferred this public interest litigation for the same relief.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not made any concealment of fact as the order of the NGT has been brought on record as annexure-6 to the writ petition.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned Advocate appearing for the eight respondent.
It is true that the petitioner has not concealed the fact that NGT has passed an order so the petitioner is not guilty of any suppression of fact but facts remain that for the same cause of action NGT has passed an order. If the said order is not complied with, the petitioner or aggrieved person may take recourse to the remedy which is available under law.
In our view the proceeding under public interest litigation jurisdiction was not appropriate remedy, therefore, we decline to entertain this PIL without expressing any opinion on merits. The PIL is accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid liberty.
No order as to costs Order Date :- 31.5.2019 Digamber