LUCKNOW vs Counsel for Petitioner(s)

"1. Vakalatnama filed today by Shri Mohit Nigam, Advocate, Shri Anurag Tyagi, Advocate and Shri P.S. Bajpai, Advocate on behalf of respondent No.3, respondent No.4 and respondent No.6, respectively are taken on record.

2. Heard. 2 WPIL No. 1151 of 2025

3. Shri P.S. Bajpai, learned Counsel for the respondent No.6 shall bring on record the plaint of the suit filed by his client. The temporary injunction order dated 15.12.2006 is on record which categorically states that the respondent No.6-plaintiff is not in possession of the land on which the park and tube well exist. It is submitted by the Counsel for the petitioners that the order is absolutely silent as to the sale deeds executed subsequently by father of respondent No.6 in favour of Shri Vishnu Agarwal who in turn sold off the land to Krishna Colonizers and also that the park in question is a listed park under the U.P. Maintenance of Parks, Playgrounds and Open Spaces (Preservation and Regulation) Act, 1975. The submission is that there is a tube well existing thereon but it is not operational as yet. The water level having gone down it is unable to cater to the needs of residents of the vicinity and re-boring was being undertaken so that the said tube well may be used for providing water to the residents of the area but the respondent No.6 under the threat of the temporary injunction and contempt have stopped the Nagar Nigam from proceeding with the re-boring with the result that the residents of the entire vicinity are being deprived of drinking water consequently their right to live with dignity enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is being violated.

4. Prima facie it appears that the park and the tube well existing therein, if any, is not in possession of the respondent No.6 as is mentioned in the temporary injunction order subject, however, to the assertion of the respondent No.6 in the pleadings in the plaint filed by him. If he is not in possession then the suit for temporary injunction apparently would not relate to this portion of the land but to be doubly sure we have asked the Counsel for respondent No.6 to file the plaint before the next date. It is also open for the Counsel for respondent No.6 to file an affidavit in response to the writ petition before the next date.

5. List this case on 26.11.2025, as fresh showing of the names of Shri Mohit Nigam, Advocate, Shri Anurag Tyagi, Advocate and Shri P.S. Bajpai, Advocate as Counsel for respondent No.3, respondent No.4 and respondent No.6, respectively"

7. Today, when the matter was heard, Ms. Pushpila Bisht had invited our attention to an application, copy of which is annexed as Annexure No.11 to 3 WPIL No. 1151 of 2025 the writ petition which was filed by Vishnupuri Vistaar Kalyan Samiti in regular suit no.592 of 2006 that is the very suit which has been referred by us in our above quoted order, seeking similar relief as prayed in this Public Interest Litigation (hereinafter referred to as "PIL"). It was asserted during course of hearing that the petitioners are members of the aforesaid society which has filed the aforesaid application. It was asserted by Ms. Pushpila Bisht that the said society has got itself impleaded in the aforesaid suit as defendant no.4 therein. Most important the said application was rejected by the civil court on 1.2.2022 which has not been challenged by the said society or the petitioners who are members of the said society. None of these facts have been disclosed by the petitioners in their pleadings in the writ petition, therefore, there is gross concealment of facts. PIL at their behest is in fact not maintainable.

8. Ms. Bisht in fact asserted that petitioner no.2 himself is the Secretary and his address is the same as that of the Society.

9. Apparently, this is concealment of material and relevant facts. This is a serious omission and concealment, considering the fact that all the writ petitioners have filed this petition as a PIL. Had it been mentioned in the writ petition that they are members of the resident Society referred in paragraph 28 of the writ petition, then, the first and foremost question which we would have put to learned counsel for the petitioners on the last date would have been as to how this petition is maintainable as a PIL in respect of the reliefs prayed for, but the petitioners concealed these facts from the Court.

10. On being confronted, learned counsel for the petitioners who has filed this petition styled as PIL, admitted the fact that all the petitioners are members of the aforesaid society and that the society is defendant no.4 in the said suit and also that its application (Annexure-11) has been rejected on

1.2.2022 but insisted that the PIL filed by them was still maintainable and also that alleged concealment has been explained in the supplementary affidavit filed today. We have perused the supplementary affidavit and do not find any explanation as to omission on the part of the petitioners to mention relevant facts as noticed above. In fact supplementary affidavit reinforces the view that subject matter of PIL is same as suit property of 4 WPIL No. 1151 of 2025 Suit No.592/2006.

11. We asked learned counsel for the petitioners as to where are the averments in the writ petition in respect of the contents of the application contained in Annexure 11 and about the petitioners being members of the aforesaid society and that the said society had filed an application for impleadment in the aforesaid suit which was allowed resulting in impleadment of the said society as defendant no.4 and also about filing of the application (Annexure No. 11) by the society in the aforesaid suit seeking similar relief, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 invited our attention to paragraph 28 of the writ petition which reads as under :- "28. That the resident society is already a party in the aforementioned suit since 2016 and is readily pursuing the Regular Suit. However, because of the delaying tactics of the opposite party no.5, who is a Advocate, the proceedings before the Learned Court below are not reaching finalisation any good and have only reached to the stage of evidence." Learned counsel for respondent no.4 however could not point out any averment in the writ petition that all the petitioners are members of the said society.

12. We have also perused the plaint of the said suit which has been filed today along with supplementary affidavit of the petitioners and had not been filed earlier. Indeed the said society is defendant no.4 in the said suit.

13. Most important, while the application annexed at page 112 filed by the society is on record and has been filed in the suit in December, 2021, when we peruse the corresponding averments in the writ petition pertaining to the said Annexure No.11, we find that paragraph 38 reads as under :- "38. That the petitioners are seeking the gracious indulgence of this Hon'ble Court in view of the facts and circumstances that whenever the petitioners have tried to seek help of the authorities for making drinking water available to them through new tubewell in place of old tubewell, situated in the park of the colony, the opposite party no.6/plaintiff in Regular suit had approached the Learned court below by filing application under Order 39 Rule 2-A for the defiance of the injunction order granted by the Learned court below. 5 WPIL No. 1151 of 2025 True copy of the application filed in January 2022 alongwith with order dated 01.02.2022 passed in the plaintiff in the present suit is being annexed herewith as Annexure No.11 to this writ petition."

14. The copy of the application annexed as Annexure 11 is not one under Order XXXIX Rule 2A nor is the order dated 01.02.2022 pertaining to it. In fact, the application annexed is the one referred earlier filed by the Society and the order dated 01.02.2022 is an order regarding it. The averments in the said paragraph do not match with the documents annexed as Annexure No.11. In fact, it appears, due to inadvertence this application and order was annexed which has ultimately spilled the beans, without there being any intention of petitioners to bring the same on record.

15. Today, a supplementary affidavit has been filed wherein it is claimed that an explanation has been offered in this regard, however, when we peruse the supplementary affidavit, we do not find any explanation as to the discrepancy in contents of paragraph 38 of the writ petition viz-a-viz Annexure -11 referred therein.

16. In the plaint pertaining to the aforesaid suit No. 592 of 2006 filed by respondent no.6, the following reliefs have been prayed :- "अ. यह िक (cid:281)यायालय (cid:361)ीमान् जो उपरो(cid:472) वाद म(cid:517) मृत वादी के प(cid:87) म(cid:517), (cid:352)ितवादीगणो के िव(cid:627)(cid:490) एक (cid:281)याियक िड(cid:332)ी (cid:293)थाई िनषेधा(cid:88)ा की इस आशय की पािरत कर देव(cid:517) िक (cid:352)ितवादी गण वादी के शाि(cid:281)तपूण(cid:259) क(cid:284)जे व मािलकाना हक खसरा नंबर- 178 म(cid:517) कोई अवैध िनमा(cid:259)ण न कर(cid:517)। ब. यह िक वाद का खचा(cid:259) मृत वादी को (cid:352)ितवादीगण(cid:523) से िदलाया जाये। स. यह िक अ(cid:281)य कोई (cid:281)याय सि(cid:281)नकट वाद हो मृत वादी को (cid:352)ितवादीगण(cid:523) से िदलाया जाये।"

17. The suit property is Gata No.178. The boring etc. being sought by the petitioners is situated on Gata No. 178, a fact admitted by Shri Shukla who, however, asserted that the said land had been sold off by registered sale- deed, facts not disclosed by opposite party no. 6 in the suit. We are not concerned with the merits of the suit but are concerned with the lack of bonafide of the petitioners in filing this PIL.

18. We are not in doubt at all that provision of clean drinking water is a basic need and a fundamental right of a citizen but, we cannot countenance a 6 WPIL No. 1151 of 2025 situation where a petition is filed as PIL seeking reliefs which are clearly relatable to the subject matter of the suit aforesaid.

19. Reference was made by us in our earlier order to the temporary injunction order passed in the said suit and the observations contained therein that the plaintiff prima facie was not in possession of the tube-well and the boring but it was not informed to the court on the last date nor mentioned in the pleadings that the petitioners being members of the society were very much part of the dispute pertaining to the land bearing Gata No.178 over which the alleged boring and tube-well are situated. Had it been informed, we would have not passed the order which we have passed on the last date as quoted here-in-above. Further, Ms. Pushpila Bisht says that the interim finding in this regard is incorrect which they will prove in the suit itself. On the other hand, Shri Shobhit Mohan Shukla says that the suit property in fact was sold and colony has been developed by Krishna Colonizers, facts which have not been disclosed in the suit. We are not concerned with merits of the issues involved in the suit but are concerned as to whether petitioners have approached this Court with clean hands or not, which they have not.

20. When we peruse the reliefs prayed for in the application, copy of which is annexed at page 112 (Annexure No.11), we find firstly it is an application for grant of permission to the Nagar Nigam, Lucknow for boring of new tubewell in the park suited at Vishnupuri Colony. The prayer made therein is for permitting Nagar Nigam Lucknow for boring of new tubewell in the park suited at Vishnupuri Colony in front of St. Fidlis College, Church Road, Aliganj, Lucknow as well as the residents of nearby locality in the interest of justice. Now, when we peruse the averments in the writ petition and the relief clauses, we find that similar relief has been sought in this petition, although differently worded and for convenience, relief nos.i and iii are being quoted hereinbelow :- "i. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties no.2 to 5 to forthwith undertake and complete the work of boring and restoration of the tubewell situated in the park of Vishnupuri Colony, Lucknow, in the interest of public health and safety; iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby 7 WPIL No. 1151 of 2025 commanding the opposite parties no.1 to 6 not to interference in the re- boring/ erection of tube well which will supply drinking potable water to almost all 15,000 to 20,000 people staying in the locality of Vishnupuri Colony and adjacent colonies."

21. It is not in dispute and was not disputed by Shri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners during course of arguments that boring as claimed in the writ petition and the application annexed at page 112 is taking place at the same place where the earlier boring was existing. Most important, the aforesaid application at page 112 was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 1.2.2022, copy of which is also on record. If the order passed by the trial court was wrong on facts or law, there are remedies prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure itself. There is no averment before us till date that this order has been challenged by any petitioners by taking recourse to any remedy under the Code of Civil Procedure.

22. Such omission/ concealment as has been done by petitioners is not acceptable, even in a regular writ petition, for it to be done in a PIL, is all the more condemnable. The petitioners have tried to misuse the process of law.

23. In the garb of a PIL, the petitioners have attempted to mislead the court into encroaching upon the jurisdiction of the civil court where Suit No.592 of 2006 wherein entire Gata No.178 is the subject matter of suit and park including tube-well and boring therein is also part of Gata No.178, therefore, we cannot consider the relief no.iv in these proceedings. Therefore, relief if any, will have to be sought in the suit itself or, if permissible, without touching upon the suit property, separately, but only after disclosing pendency of the suit and all relevant facts.

24. As regards relief nos.ii and iv are concerned, if, independent of the subject matter of the aforesaid suit, any proceedings are initiated by the petitioners whether by way of writ petition or otherwise, not as a PIL, but as a person aggrieved, for being provided drinking water, they can do so.

25. In view of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that bona fides of the petitioners, are lacking for any indulgence in a PIL in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We accordingly dismiss this writ petition. 8 WPIL No. 1151 of 2025

26. Our order shall not come in the way of Nagar Nigam to make provision for water in the locality in question without touching upon the suit property, referred above, if required and necessary.

27. We are pained to observe that the counsel for the Nagar Nigam, Shri Mohit Nigam, who has been assigned this case, is not present. We have been hearing this matter for about half an hour yet he has not appeared.

28. Copy of this order shall be sent to the Municipal Commissioner, Lucknow as in spite of waiting for a half an hour, its counsel did not appear to argue the matter. Municipal Commissioner, Lucknow needs to set his house in order. November 27, 2025 Shukla (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

"1. Vakalatnama filed today by Shri Mohit Nigam, Advocate, Shri Anurag Tyagi, Advocate and Shri P.S. Bajpai, Advocate on behalf of respondent No.3, respondent No.4 and respondent No.6, respectively are taken on record.

2. Heard. 2 WPIL No. 1151 of 2025

3. Shri P.S. Bajpai, learned Counsel for the respondent No.6 shall bring on record the plaint of the suit filed by his client. The temporary injunction order dated 15.12.2006 is on record which categorically states that the respondent No.6-plaintiff is not in possession of the land on which the park and tube well exist. It is submitted by the Counsel for the petitioners that the order is absolutely silent as to the sale deeds executed subsequently by father of respondent No.6 in favour of Shri Vishnu Agarwal who in turn sold off the land to Krishna Colonizers and also that the park in question is a listed park under the U.P. Maintenance of Parks, Playgrounds and Open Spaces (Preservation and Regulation) Act, 1975. The submission is that there is a tube well existing thereon but it is not operational as yet. The water level having gone down it is unable to cater to the needs of residents of the vicinity and re-boring was being undertaken so that the said tube well may be used for providing water to the residents of the area but the respondent No.6 under the threat of the temporary injunction and contempt have stopped the Nagar Nigam from proceeding with the re-boring with the result that the residents of the entire vicinity are being deprived of drinking water consequently their right to live with dignity enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is being violated.

4. Prima facie it appears that the park and the tube well existing therein, if any, is not in possession of the respondent No.6 as is mentioned in the temporary injunction order subject, however, to the assertion of the respondent No.6 in the pleadings in the plaint filed by him. If he is not in possession then the suit for temporary injunction apparently would not relate to this portion of the land but to be doubly sure we have asked the Counsel for respondent No.6 to file the plaint before the next date. It is also open for the Counsel for respondent No.6 to file an affidavit in response to the writ petition before the next date.

5. List this case on 26.11.2025, as fresh showing of the names of Shri Mohit Nigam, Advocate, Shri Anurag Tyagi, Advocate and Shri P.S. Bajpai, Advocate as Counsel for respondent No.3, respondent No.4 and respondent No.6, respectively"

7. Today, when the matter was heard, Ms. Pushpila Bisht had invited our attention to an application, copy of which is annexed as Annexure No.11 to 3 WPIL No. 1151 of 2025 the writ petition which was filed by Vishnupuri Vistaar Kalyan Samiti in regular suit no.592 of 2006 that is the very suit which has been referred by us in our above quoted order, seeking similar relief as prayed in this Public Interest Litigation (hereinafter referred to as "PIL"). It was asserted during course of hearing that the petitioners are members of the aforesaid society which has filed the aforesaid application. It was asserted by Ms. Pushpila Bisht that the said society has got itself impleaded in the aforesaid suit as defendant no.4 therein. Most important the said application was rejected by the civil court on 1.2.2022 which has not been challenged by the said society or the petitioners who are members of the said society. None of these facts have been disclosed by the petitioners in their pleadings in the writ petition, therefore, there is gross concealment of facts. PIL at their behest is in fact not maintainable.

8. Ms. Bisht in fact asserted that petitioner no.2 himself is the Secretary and his address is the same as that of the Society.

9. Apparently, this is concealment of material and relevant facts. This is a serious omission and concealment, considering the fact that all the writ petitioners have filed this petition as a PIL. Had it been mentioned in the writ petition that they are members of the resident Society referred in paragraph 28 of the writ petition, then, the first and foremost question which we would have put to learned counsel for the petitioners on the last date would have been as to how this petition is maintainable as a PIL in respect of the reliefs prayed for, but the petitioners concealed these facts from the Court.

10. On being confronted, learned counsel for the petitioners who has filed this petition styled as PIL, admitted the fact that all the petitioners are members of the aforesaid society and that the society is defendant no.4 in the said suit and also that its application (Annexure-11) has been rejected on

1.2.2022 but insisted that the PIL filed by them was still maintainable and also that alleged concealment has been explained in the supplementary affidavit filed today. We have perused the supplementary affidavit and do not find any explanation as to omission on the part of the petitioners to mention relevant facts as noticed above. In fact supplementary affidavit reinforces the view that subject matter of PIL is same as suit property of 4 WPIL No. 1151 of 2025 Suit No.592/2006.

11. We asked learned counsel for the petitioners as to where are the averments in the writ petition in respect of the contents of the application contained in Annexure 11 and about the petitioners being members of the aforesaid society and that the said society had filed an application for impleadment in the aforesaid suit which was allowed resulting in impleadment of the said society as defendant no.4 and also about filing of the application (Annexure No. 11) by the society in the aforesaid suit seeking similar relief, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 invited our attention to paragraph 28 of the writ petition which reads as under :- "28. That the resident society is already a party in the aforementioned suit since 2016 and is readily pursuing the Regular Suit. However, because of the delaying tactics of the opposite party no.5, who is a Advocate, the proceedings before the Learned Court below are not reaching finalisation any good and have only reached to the stage of evidence." Learned counsel for respondent no.4 however could not point out any averment in the writ petition that all the petitioners are members of the said society.

12. We have also perused the plaint of the said suit which has been filed today along with supplementary affidavit of the petitioners and had not been filed earlier. Indeed the said society is defendant no.4 in the said suit.

13. Most important, while the application annexed at page 112 filed by the society is on record and has been filed in the suit in December, 2021, when we peruse the corresponding averments in the writ petition pertaining to the said Annexure No.11, we find that paragraph 38 reads as under :- "38. That the petitioners are seeking the gracious indulgence of this Hon'ble Court in view of the facts and circumstances that whenever the petitioners have tried to seek help of the authorities for making drinking water available to them through new tubewell in place of old tubewell, situated in the park of the colony, the opposite party no.6/plaintiff in Regular suit had approached the Learned court below by filing application under Order 39 Rule 2-A for the defiance of the injunction order granted by the Learned court below. 5 WPIL No. 1151 of 2025 True copy of the application filed in January 2022 alongwith with order dated 01.02.2022 passed in the plaintiff in the present suit is being annexed herewith as Annexure No.11 to this writ petition."

14. The copy of the application annexed as Annexure 11 is not one under Order XXXIX Rule 2A nor is the order dated 01.02.2022 pertaining to it. In fact, the application annexed is the one referred earlier filed by the Society and the order dated 01.02.2022 is an order regarding it. The averments in the said paragraph do not match with the documents annexed as Annexure No.11. In fact, it appears, due to inadvertence this application and order was annexed which has ultimately spilled the beans, without there being any intention of petitioners to bring the same on record.

15. Today, a supplementary affidavit has been filed wherein it is claimed that an explanation has been offered in this regard, however, when we peruse the supplementary affidavit, we do not find any explanation as to the discrepancy in contents of paragraph 38 of the writ petition viz-a-viz Annexure -11 referred therein.

16. In the plaint pertaining to the aforesaid suit No. 592 of 2006 filed by respondent no.6, the following reliefs have been prayed :- "अ. यह िक (cid:281)यायालय (cid:361)ीमान् जो उपरो(cid:472) वाद म(cid:517) मृत वादी के प(cid:87) म(cid:517), (cid:352)ितवादीगणो के िव(cid:627)(cid:490) एक (cid:281)याियक िड(cid:332)ी (cid:293)थाई िनषेधा(cid:88)ा की इस आशय की पािरत कर देव(cid:517) िक (cid:352)ितवादी गण वादी के शाि(cid:281)तपूण(cid:259) क(cid:284)जे व मािलकाना हक खसरा नंबर- 178 म(cid:517) कोई अवैध िनमा(cid:259)ण न कर(cid:517)। ब. यह िक वाद का खचा(cid:259) मृत वादी को (cid:352)ितवादीगण(cid:523) से िदलाया जाये। स. यह िक अ(cid:281)य कोई (cid:281)याय सि(cid:281)नकट वाद हो मृत वादी को (cid:352)ितवादीगण(cid:523) से िदलाया जाये।"

17. The suit property is Gata No.178. The boring etc. being sought by the petitioners is situated on Gata No. 178, a fact admitted by Shri Shukla who, however, asserted that the said land had been sold off by registered sale- deed, facts not disclosed by opposite party no. 6 in the suit. We are not concerned with the merits of the suit but are concerned with the lack of bonafide of the petitioners in filing this PIL.

18. We are not in doubt at all that provision of clean drinking water is a basic need and a fundamental right of a citizen but, we cannot countenance a 6 WPIL No. 1151 of 2025 situation where a petition is filed as PIL seeking reliefs which are clearly relatable to the subject matter of the suit aforesaid.

19. Reference was made by us in our earlier order to the temporary injunction order passed in the said suit and the observations contained therein that the plaintiff prima facie was not in possession of the tube-well and the boring but it was not informed to the court on the last date nor mentioned in the pleadings that the petitioners being members of the society were very much part of the dispute pertaining to the land bearing Gata No.178 over which the alleged boring and tube-well are situated. Had it been informed, we would have not passed the order which we have passed on the last date as quoted here-in-above. Further, Ms. Pushpila Bisht says that the interim finding in this regard is incorrect which they will prove in the suit itself. On the other hand, Shri Shobhit Mohan Shukla says that the suit property in fact was sold and colony has been developed by Krishna Colonizers, facts which have not been disclosed in the suit. We are not concerned with merits of the issues involved in the suit but are concerned as to whether petitioners have approached this Court with clean hands or not, which they have not.

20. When we peruse the reliefs prayed for in the application, copy of which is annexed at page 112 (Annexure No.11), we find firstly it is an application for grant of permission to the Nagar Nigam, Lucknow for boring of new tubewell in the park suited at Vishnupuri Colony. The prayer made therein is for permitting Nagar Nigam Lucknow for boring of new tubewell in the park suited at Vishnupuri Colony in front of St. Fidlis College, Church Road, Aliganj, Lucknow as well as the residents of nearby locality in the interest of justice. Now, when we peruse the averments in the writ petition and the relief clauses, we find that similar relief has been sought in this petition, although differently worded and for convenience, relief nos.i and iii are being quoted hereinbelow :- "i. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties no.2 to 5 to forthwith undertake and complete the work of boring and restoration of the tubewell situated in the park of Vishnupuri Colony, Lucknow, in the interest of public health and safety; iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby 7 WPIL No. 1151 of 2025 commanding the opposite parties no.1 to 6 not to interference in the re- boring/ erection of tube well which will supply drinking potable water to almost all 15,000 to 20,000 people staying in the locality of Vishnupuri Colony and adjacent colonies."

21. It is not in dispute and was not disputed by Shri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners during course of arguments that boring as claimed in the writ petition and the application annexed at page 112 is taking place at the same place where the earlier boring was existing. Most important, the aforesaid application at page 112 was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 1.2.2022, copy of which is also on record. If the order passed by the trial court was wrong on facts or law, there are remedies prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure itself. There is no averment before us till date that this order has been challenged by any petitioners by taking recourse to any remedy under the Code of Civil Procedure.

22. Such omission/ concealment as has been done by petitioners is not acceptable, even in a regular writ petition, for it to be done in a PIL, is all the more condemnable. The petitioners have tried to misuse the process of law.

23. In the garb of a PIL, the petitioners have attempted to mislead the court into encroaching upon the jurisdiction of the civil court where Suit No.592 of 2006 wherein entire Gata No.178 is the subject matter of suit and park including tube-well and boring therein is also part of Gata No.178, therefore, we cannot consider the relief no.iv in these proceedings. Therefore, relief if any, will have to be sought in the suit itself or, if permissible, without touching upon the suit property, separately, but only after disclosing pendency of the suit and all relevant facts.

24. As regards relief nos.ii and iv are concerned, if, independent of the subject matter of the aforesaid suit, any proceedings are initiated by the petitioners whether by way of writ petition or otherwise, not as a PIL, but as a person aggrieved, for being provided drinking water, they can do so.

25. In view of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that bona fides of the petitioners, are lacking for any indulgence in a PIL in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We accordingly dismiss this writ petition. 8 WPIL No. 1151 of 2025

26. Our order shall not come in the way of Nagar Nigam to make provision for water in the locality in question without touching upon the suit property, referred above, if required and necessary.

27. We are pained to observe that the counsel for the Nagar Nigam, Shri Mohit Nigam, who has been assigned this case, is not present. We have been hearing this matter for about half an hour yet he has not appeared.

28. Copy of this order shall be sent to the Municipal Commissioner, Lucknow as in spite of waiting for a half an hour, its counsel did not appear to argue the matter. Municipal Commissioner, Lucknow needs to set his house in order. November 27, 2025 Shukla (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench