Allahabad High Court
Rajkumar Sharma vs The Union Of India And 2 Others on 16 September, 2019
Bench: Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, Piyush Agrawal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 21 Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1638 of 2019 Petitioner :- Rajkumar Sharma Respondent :- The Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vipul Dube,Hanuman Prasad Dube Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Ishan Shishu,Vikas Budhwar Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
Heard Sri H.P. Dube along with Sri Vipul Dube, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikas Budhwar, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3. Nobody appears for the Union of India.
By means of the present writ petition the petitioner seeks amongst other the following reliefs:
"i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and quashing the impugned advertisement dated 25.11.2018 (Annexure -1 to the writ petition) published under the authority of the respondents in so far as it relates to appointment of dealership of the Location No. 1730, "IN OR AROUND THE VILLAGE RABUPURA ON MAIN ROAD WITHIN 2 KMS. FROM THE BUS STAND TOWARDS BULANDSHAHAR-KHURJA ROAD VIA JANTA INTER COLLEGE"
ii) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to finalize the appointment of dealership in respect of the Location No. 1730, "IN OR AROUND THE VILLAGE RABUPURA ON MAIN ROAD WITHIN 2 KMS. FROM THE BUS STAND TOWARDS BULANDSHAHAR-KHURJA ROAD VIA JANTA INTER COLLEGE" in pursuance of the impugned Advertisement dated 25.11.2018.
iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to readvertise the Location No. 1730, "IN OR AROUND THE VILLAGE RABUPURA ON MAIN ROAD WITHIN 2 KMS. FROM THE BUS STAND TOWARDS BULANDSHAHAR-KHURJA ROAD VIA JANTA INTER COLLEGE" for appointment of the dealership under the type of "Urban" for open category."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the area of Kasba Rubupura District Gautam Budh Nagar is under Nagar Panchayat Rubupura and is also included in the 'Industrial Township' of Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority and therefore, treating the said area to be rural one is not correct and is patently illegal as shown by the respondents in their Advertisement dated 25.11.2018.
The respondents have issued the aforesaid advertisement inviting applications for allotment of retail outlet dealerships of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited.
It has been stated that a notification dated 18.12.2015 was issued by the State Government in exercise of powers under Article 243 (Q) (1) of the Constitution of India by which 80 villages have been included within the territorial limits of Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority and have been declared as 'Industrial Township". It is further stated that once the said notification having been issued including the area of the aforesaid villages in Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority by which the said area has been declared as 'Industrial Township', the respondents were not justified in declaring the area of Kasba Rubupura District Gautam Budh Nagar as rural by which certain eligible candidates will not be able to apply for the dealership.
Sri Vikas Budhwar, learned counsel for the respondent rebutting the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised objection that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others, (2010) 3 SCC 6 the present Public Interest Litigation is not at all maintainable.
After hearing the submissions of both the sides we find that in the case of State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others, (2010) 3 SCC 6 the Supreme Court went elaborately into all the aspects including the origin and history of the Public Interest Litigation and has categorized the public interest litigation in three phases from origin to its current trend. The Court also considered various facets of public interest litigation, the backdrop of criticism from within and outside of the system. The Court has categorized the concept and development of public interest litigation in three phases in the following terms:
"43. In this judgment, we would like to deal with the origin and development of public interest litigation. We deem it appropriate to broadly divide the public interest litigation in three phases:
Phase I.- It deals with cases of this Court where directions and orders were passed primarily to protect fundamental rights under Article 21 of the marginalized groups and sections of the society who because of extreme poverty, illiteracy and ignorance cannot approach this court or the High Courts.
Phase II.- It deals with the cases relating to protection, preservation of ecology, environment, forests, marine life, wildlife, mountains, rivers, historical monuments etc. etc. Phase III.- It deals with the directions issued by the Courts in maintaining the probity, transparency and integrity in governance."
It is a settled law that the Courts must encourage genuine and bonafide Public Interest Litigation, which has been filed for redressasl of genuine public harm or public injury. However, the Court has also opined that frivolous petition must be dealt with firm hand and should be discouraged by imposing heavy cost.
Recently, another Division Bench of this Court in Rahul Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & 4 Others (PIL No. 1215 of 2019, decided on 31.05.2019), classifying the categories of public interest litigations, which are generally filed in this Court, has elaborately considered the issues of public interest and passed a detailed order. In the said case, this Court has observed as under:-
"Accordingly, we are of the view that in the matter of removal of encroachment of pathways, drains etc., statutory remedy is available to the persons under the Criminal Procedure Code, the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, and under the Acts which govern the local bodies, Nagar Nigams, Municipal Corporations, Nagar Panchayats, Municipalities etc. etc. hence the public interest litigation ordinarily should not be entertained. If there is inaction on the part of statutory authorities, the aggrieved person can approach to this Court for appropriate direction but not by way of PIL"
In view of the above, this Public Interest Litigation is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to take recourse to such remedy which is available to him under the law.
It is made clear that this order will not cause any prejudice to the interest of the petitioner and other persons, as we have not considered the issue on the merit.
Order Date :- 16.9.2019 samz