Kautilya Society through General Secretary and another v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary and others) on 09 Jul 2025

Judgment

1. Heard Shri Ashutosh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4, Shri Ravi Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for respondent nos. 5 and 6 and Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 7 and perused the material available on record.

2. The present petition in the nature of a public interest litigation has been filed by Kashi Utkarsh Foundation through its Managing Trustee Debashis Paul as petitioner no. 1 and Mr. Paul himself as petitioner no. 2 making several prayers.

3. A writ of mandamus has been sought commanding the respondent authorities to demolish various constructions, terming the same to be illegal and arbitrary and having been carried out within 200 meters from the bank of river Ganga and within the area between Highest Flood Level (in short ‘H.F.L.’) and 200 meters from H.F.L. declared as No Construction Zone and within 300 meters of A.S.I. protected monuments and various other constructions being raised in the said zone; to take appropriate action against the accountable persons; to cancel compounding of all new and illegal constructions lying in the aforesaid area and heritage zone; to constitute a High Level Committee for issuing No Objection Certificate and for proper vigilance of illegal construction activities being carried out in the aforesaid area; to stop illegal 2 commercial activities being carried out in the said area and, lastly, to fix accountability and responsibility with regard to such constructions and take appropriate action against the accountable persons.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to annexures to the petition, which include extract of some Building Regulations, reports of officers of the Development Authority, certain orders passed and notices issued by them under statutory powers conferred under U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (in short ‘the Act, 1973’) and various photographs of large number of constructions, submits that the said constructions have been raised in violation of Building Bye-laws and in prohibited areas and, therefore, the reliefs claimed should be granted.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that whenever some violation of law has been found in relation to the constructions in question, action has been taken by the authorities by issuing notices and passing appropriate orders in accordance with law which fact stands reflected from the record of the writ petition itself. Submission is that law takes its own recourse and once statutory powers under the Act of 1973 are being and have been exercised, there is no reason for issuing directions in a petition filed in purported public interest.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find that the petitioner no. 1 claims itself to be a Non-Government Organisation/ Trust having its registered office at Varanasi allegedly raising social issues to protect and promote the heritage and other local resources of Varanasi such as culture, architecture, environment, arts, crafts, languages, science, skills, knowledge, traditional activities etc. Annexure No. 1, i.e. copy of the extract of registration number 2 of 9 3 allotted to the Trust by the Sub-Registrar, Sadar (III), Varanasi, indicates that the Trust has been registered on 19.10.2024, i.e. just nine months ago.

7. Further, petitioner no. 2 claims himself to be human right activist allegedly fighting for causes which affect cultural and social heritage of society and also to be associated with one PIL No. 31229 of 2005 (Kautilya Society through General Secretary and another Vs. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary and others).

8. The attempt of the petitioners is apparent on the face of the record, i.e. they want to use machinery of this Court not only for demolition of large number of old and new constructions existing in the city of Varanasi but also to restrain further constructions and to stop all commercial activities being carried in various localities of the city. In paragraph no. 20 of the petition, names and description of eight persons and their immovable properties have been given, whereas in paragraph no. 21, description of sixteen persons and their immovable properties has been indicated. Paragraph no. 22 contains a recital that certain statutory appeals filed against demolition orders passed under the Act of 1973 against sixteen persons have been dismissed.

9. None of the persons whose description has been given in the aforesaid paragraphs, has been impleaded as a party-respondent in the present petition, although drastic reliefs have been claimed which, if granted, would certainly affect all of them causing serious prejudice and injury to them. When confronted with this aspect, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is not possible to implead large number of persons and, therefore, they have not been impleaded. 3 of 9 4

10. The Court expresses its utter surprise to the submission so made, inasmuch as it is well settled that in case a relief is claimed which may affect rights and interest of any person, he must be impleaded as a party to the proceedings so that he may come up with his defence qua the controversy involved in the matter. Number of persons, being large or small, cannot be taken as an exception to the general rule of law. Principle of law contained in Rule 9 of Order I of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and its proviso render non-joinder of a necessary party to be fatal to the case and constitutes a sufficient ground to dismiss the same on this count only.

11. During the course of hearing, reference was also made to certain orders passed by this Court in PIL No. 4003 of 2006 (Re: Ganga Pollution Vs. State of U.P. and others) and it was sought to be argued that the constructions referred to in the petition having been raised in violation of the orders passed in that petition, be directed to be demolished.

12. Learned counsel for the respondents pointed out, as also admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the aforesaid PIL No. 4003 of 2006 was remitted/transferred by this Court to the National Green Tribunal, New Delhi (in short ‘N.G.T.’), where certain orders have been passed.

13. Be that as it may, we are not at all convinced with any of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners so as to call for any interference by this Court. If certain orders have been passed under the provisions of Act of 1973, law will take its own recourse without any further intervention of this Court in the present petition. Further, we are not aware as to what happened to the said orders in due course of time as no material has been placed before 4 of 9 5 us in that regard. Further, any order passed in PIL No. 4003 of 2006 or by N.G.T., not being a subject matter of consideration in the present petition, no further observations can be made by this Court in that regard.

14. We further note that recent registration of petitioner no. 1- Trust itself demonstrates that the same has been done so as to file petitions in public interest and we take judicial notice of the fact that Mr. Debashis Paul, claiming himself to be Managing Trustee of the petitioner-Trust and having arrayed himself as petitioner no. 2 in his personal capacity, has been indulging in filing repeated petitions agitating the same or similar issues in relation to the constructions in Varanasi. One such petition recently came up before this Court few days back when attempt was made to stop constructions in a locality allegedly preserved or maintained as a heritage zone. Such a practice cannot be approved by this Court, however, at this stage, we are not inclined to make any further observations in this regard at this stage.

15. In Kushum Lata versus Union of India an others : (2006) 6 SCC 180, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:- "5. ……….. Public Interest Litigation which has now come to occupy an important field in the administration of law should not be "publicity interest litigation" or "private interest litigation" or "politics interest litigation" or the latest trend "paise income litigation". The High Court has found that the case at hand belongs to the second category. If not properly regulated and abuse averted, it becomes also a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreck vengeance, as well. There must be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and not merely an adventure of knight errant borne out of wishful thinking. It cannot also be invoked by a person or a body of persons to further his or their personal causes or satisfy his or their personal grudge and enmity. The Courts of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the 5 of 9 6 extraordinary jurisdiction. A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of public interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in The Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary (1992 (4) SCC 305) and Kazi Lhendup Dorji vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (1994 Supp (2) SCC 116). A writ petitioner who comes to the Court for relief in public interest must come not only with clean hands like any other writ petitioner but also with a clean heart, clean mind and clean objective. (See Ramjas Foundation vs. Union of India, (AIR 1993 SC 852) and K.R. Srinivas v. R.M. Premchand, (1994 (6) SCC 620)." (emphasis by us)

16. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in State of Uttaranchal versus Balwant Singh Chaufal and Ors. : (2010) 3 SCC 402, laid down the following guidelines relating to Public Interest Litigation:- “181……………. In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, it has become imperative to issue the following directions:- (1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations. (2) Instead of every individual judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the Rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this court immediately thereafter. (3) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL. (4) The Court should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL. (5) The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition. 6 of 9 7 (6) The Courts should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions. (7) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation. (8) The Courts should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations." (emphasis by us)

17. In Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti versus State of Rajasthan and others : (2014) 5 SCC 530, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under :- "49. The concept of public interest litigation is a phenomenon which is evolved to bring justice to the reach of people who are handicapped by ignorance, indigence, illiteracy and other downtrodden people. Through the public interest litigation, the cause of several people who are not able to approach the court is espoused. In the guise of public interest litigation, we are coming across several cases where it is exploited for the benefit of certain individuals. The courts have to be very cautious and careful while entertaining public interest litigation. The judiciary should deal with the misuse of public interest litigation with iron hand. If the public interest litigation is permitted to be misused the very purpose for which it is conceived, namely, to come to the rescue of the poor and downtrodden will be defeated. The courts should discourage the unjustified litigants at the initial stage itself and the person who misuses the forum should be made accountable for it. …………….." (emphasis by us)

18. In Tehseen Poonawalla vs. Union of India and another (2018) 6 SCC 72, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the object of a public interest litigation and its mis-utilization by persons with personal agenda, observed as under: 7 of 9 8 “97. Yet over time, it has been realised that this jurisdiction is capable of being and has been brazenly mis-utilised by persons with a personal agenda. At one end of that spectrum are those cases where public interest petitions are motivated by a desire to seek publicity. At the other end of the spectrum are petitions which have been instituted at the behest of business or political rivals to settle scores behind the facade of a public interest litigation. The true face of the litigant behind the façade is seldom unravelled. ………………..

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." (emphasis by us)

19. In view of above discussion, we are of the view that filing of the present petition in purported public interest is not bona fide and 8 of 9 9 the petition also suffers from fatal defects. Hence, no relief, as claimed, can be granted in the present proceedings.

20. The petition has no substance and is, accordingly, dismissed, however without imposing any cost. Order Date :- 9.7.2025 AKShukla/- (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 9 of 9