Allahabad High Court
/1212/2025 of D.K.FOUNDATION OF FREEDOM AND JUSTICE THRU.CHIEF OBSERVER SHRI JAY PRAKASH TIWARI @ JAY PRAKASH Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. DEPTT. OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT LKO. AND 8 OTHERS on 27 November 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1212 of 2025 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. 1. The petitioner herein claiming to be a company has filed its petition seeking the following relief: " a ) To issue writ, order or direction in
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1212 of 2025
Court No. - 1
HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, 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. The petitioner herein claiming to be a company has filed its petition seeking the following relief: "a) To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby direct the opposite party no.06 lodge the first information report (FIR) against the private opposite parties along with other officers, companies and contractor who were involved in the several embezzlement, irregularities & corruptions when they were posted in Municipal Corporation Ayodhya as per the audit report of year 2023-2024 and investigate the case properly as per law and after obtaining the sanction of prosecution filed report before concerned court.
b) Issue any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case."
2. Opposite party no.6 is the Central Bureau of Investigation through its Director, New Delhi.
3. On being asked, as to what is the source from which the documents annexed with the petition have been obtained, nothing could be pointed out by the petitioner's counsel. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rohit Kumar Tripathi, Deepak Kumar, Pooja Singh, Rama Soni Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Anurag Kumar Singh, Tushar Kant Mishra D.K.Foundation Of Freedom And Justice Thru.Chief Observer Shri Jay Prakash Tiwari @ Jay Prakash .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Urban Development Lko. And 8 Others .....Respondent(s)
4. Paragraph Nos.1-18 of the writ petition have been verified in the supporting affidavit on the personal knowledge of the deponent who is stated to be the pairokar of the petitioner who also happens to be working as Chief Observer of the aforesaid company. It appears that some audit objections have been raised and the concerned Directorate of Local Bodies and the Audit Department is also seized with the matter. Annexure No.2 is a notice issued by the Audit Department to the Municipal Commissioner, Lucknow. The notice has been issued under U.P. Local Audit Act, 1984. Therefore, it would be processed further.
5. We asked the petitioner, as to why, if, there is material in his possession, the petitioner itself does not lodged an FIR, no answer could be put-forth. Nothing has been stated as to the activities actually being performed especially the social activities or those in public interest by the petitioner in the writ petition.
6. There is no reason for us to entertain this PIL for the aforesaid relief.
7. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. November 27, 2025 V. Sinha WPIL No. 1212 of 2025 2 (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench