Court No. - 21
Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1214 of 2019 Petitioner :- Vikash Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Narayan Dutt Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
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 certiorari calling for record and to quash the administrative order dated 1.12.2018 (Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition).
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents to formally register a case under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and decide the same as early as possible and demolish the construction raised in Road and also remove nuisance."
The Supreme Court in the case of Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India and another, (2018) 6 SCC 72 has considered the scope and jurisdiction under Public Interest Litigation. The Court observed thus:
"98. The misuse of public interest litigation is a serious matter of concern for the judicial process. Both this court and the High Courts are flooded with litigation and are burdened by arrears. Frivolous or motivated petitions, ostensibly invoking the public interest detract from the time and attention which courts must devote to genuine causes. This court has a long list of pending cases where the personal liberty of citizens is involved. Those who await trial or the resolution of appeals against orders of conviction have a legitimate expectation of early justice. It is a travesty of justice for the resources of the legal system to be consumed by an avalanche of misdirected petitions purportedly filed in the public interest which, upon due scrutiny, are found to promote a personal, business or political agenda. This has spawned an industry of vested interests in litigation. There is a grave danger that if this state of affairs is allowed to continue, it would seriously denude the efficacy of the judicial system by detracting from the ability of the court to devote its time and resources to cases which legitimately require attention. Worse still, such petitions pose a grave danger to the credibility of the judicial process. This has the propensity of endangering the credibility of other institutions and undermining public faith in democracy and the rule of law. This will happen when the agency of the court is utilised to settle extra-judicial scores. Business rivalries have to be resolved in a competitive market for goods and services. Political rivalries have to be resolved in the great hall of democracy when the electorate votes its representatives in and out of office. Courts resolve disputes about legal rights and entitlements. Courts protect the rule of law. There is a danger that the judicial process will be reduced to a charade, if disputes beyond the ken of legal parameters occupy the judicial space."
In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, we decline to interfere in the matter.
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of the Court to withdraw the petition.
Leave is granted.
The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to take recourse to such remedy which is available to him under law.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 31.5.2019 Digamber