Court No. - 39
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 248 of 2018 Appellant :- Vipin Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P.And 8 Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Indra Dev Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mahesh Narain Singh
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J) This Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 has been filed by the petitioner- appellant against the judgement of a learned Judge of this Court dated 16 February 2018 passed in Public Interest Litigation( PIL) No. 2907 of 2018 (Vipin Kumar Vs. State of U.P and 8 others), whereby, the learned Judge has dismissed the petition on the ground that the affidavit filed with the writ petition reads as Criminal Misc. Writ Petition and the parties have been shown as Smt. Pratima Singh Vs. State of U.P and others and the District also has wrongly been mentioned as Allahabad instead of Bulandshahar. The learned Judge has also imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000/ on the petitioner which is required to be deposited before the Registrar General of this Court.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1,2,3 and 4 and Sri Mahesh Narain Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.5- Gram Sabha.
The writ petition which was in the nature of public interest litigation was filed, inter alia, for a direction to respondent nos. 2 to 4 for removing the encroachment over Gata No. 569 area 0.1640 hectare, situated at village Saidampur, Pargana Kakor Dehat, Tehsil Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahar which is a Talab (Tank) recorded in the revenue record and is allegedly under the illegal possession of private respondent nos. 6 to 9.
From a perusal of the records, it appears that in the index, synopsis of events, interim application and the writ petition, it has been mentioned as Civil Misc. Writ Petition (PIL) filed by Vipin Kumar against the State of U.P and 8 others and the District has been shown as Bulandshahar. However, in the affidavit accompanying the writ petition, it has been shown as Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. Nil of 2017 (Smt. Pratima Singh Vs. State of U.P and others) and the District has been shown as Allahabad, but the deponent has been shown as the sole petitioner i.e. Vipin Kumar.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner- appellant that the heading of the affidavit has been erroneously mentioned due to human error and in view of the bona fide of the petitioner, the public cause that he seeks to espouse by filing the public interest litigation may not suffer.
In view of the records of the case and the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant, we are inclined to dispose of this appeal by granting liberty to the petitioner- appellant to file a fresh affidavit in the aforesaid Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 2907 of 2018 after payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/ as directed by the learned Judge within a period of fifteen days from today. On deposit of the cost, the PIL shall stand restored to its original number and shall be heard afresh. It is made clear that in case, the petitioner-appellant fails to deposit the amount of Rs. 10,000/ as ordered above, this Special Appeal would stand dismissed without any further reference to this Court.
Order Date :- 27.3.2018 sfa/ (Dilip Gupta, J) (Jayant Banerji, J)