Allahabad High Court
WPIL/2349/2026 of DINESH KUMAR VISHWAKARMA Vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 7 OTHERS on 29 September 2026
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2349 of 2026 Court No. - 51 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Sri H.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 & 6, Sri Sunil Kumar Singh holding brief of Sri Bhupendra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2349 of 2026
Court No. - 51
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard Sri H.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 & 6, Sri Sunil Kumar Singh holding brief of Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 and Sri Prakhar Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vaibhav Tripathi for the respondent no. 7.
2. The present petition has been filed for the following relief:- "(i) issue a writ or direction/order in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to take appropriate action against the halka lekhpal as well as gram pradhan for selling the clay of the pond and same may be restrained."
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent nos. 6 to 8 in connivance with certain private contractors are digging the soil from Plot No. 599, recorded as pond and selling it causing loss to the State Exchequer. It is further contended that for necessary enquiries various representations have been made to the appropriate authorities, but no action has been taken.
4. Considering the arguments made by counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record, it is evident that the allegation made by the petitioner is not substantiated by any cogent evidence on record. On the other hand, the report of Lekhpal, dated 4.11.2025, filed at page 53 of the writ petition, shows that there is no evidence of digging pond over plot Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Hriday Narayan Pandey, Prem Chandra Counsel for Respondent(s) : Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C., Vaibhav Tripathi Dinesh Kumar Vishwakarma .....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And 7 Others .....Respondent(s)
no. 599. The report of the Executive Engineer, dated 22.8.2025, annexed alongwith the writ petition shows that by the order of District Magistrate soil was taken out from pond, recorded over Plot No. 474, relating to Village Chaukikalan, Tehsil Machhalishahar, District Jaunpur. The Mine Inspector, Jaunpur, in his report dated 4.6.2025, filed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition, shows that for digging of soil from Plot No. 474, requisite permission from the District Magistrate to the National Highway Authority of India is available on record and there is no evidence of any digging of soil from Plot No. 599.
5. In view of the aforesaid facts on record, it is evident that the allegations made by the petitioner in the present writ petition are unsubstantiated. The writ petition being misconceived is accordingly dismissed. September 30, 2026 Ranjeet Sahu WPIL No. 2349 of 2026 2 (Arun Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RANJEET SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad