Supreme Court of India
ALEEMUDDIN versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS on 30 November 2018
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 1103
ALEEMUDDIN
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 11703 of 2018)
NOVEMBER 30, 2018
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Public Interest Litigation: Misuse of – On facts, in a PIL filedbefore the High Court by fifth respondent, the State Governmentwas issued directions to take necessary steps to establish a newTehsil building for the District at the village – Thereafter, SLP bythe appellant that PIL filed by fifth respondent for getting the Tehsilshifted to a new place was to subserve his personal interest; andthat the new Tehsil building would be in close proximity to the landowned by the family of fifth respondent and would increase thevalue of his land – Held: Petition filed in the High Court by fifthrespondent was not a genuine petition in public interest – Where aTehsil building should be constructed is not a matter for the HighCourt to determine in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction u/Art. 226of the Constitution – These are essentially administrative mattersand a decision has to be taken by the executive – High Courts mustremain vigilant to the attempts to misuse PILs to subserve extraneousand motivated purposes – High Court erred in directing the State toconstruct a new Tehsil office at a particular place – Moreso, theState Government had taken a decision that instead of transferringthe Tehsil building to a new location, it should be reconstructed atthe place of the old Tehsil building – Thus, the directions containedin the order of the High Court set aside.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 11703of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.10.2017 of the HighCourt of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Recall Application No.259865 of 2017 in PIL No. 157 of 2017.
Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, Wasim Ahmad, Ms. Aditi Gupta, Advs.for the Appellant.
1103
A
B
CD
E
F
G
H
1104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.
AMs. Charu Singhal, Ms. Stuti Chopra, Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi,Ashok K. Srivastava, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.BLeave granted.
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. A petition was filed purportedly in public interest before theAllahabad High Court by the fifth respondent. In his petition, the fifthrespondent sought a direction to the State Government to establish anew tehsil building for Tehsil Hasanpur at Village Karanpur Mafi in theCDistrict of Amroha in Uttar Pradesh. The relief which he sought was inthe following terms :
“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamusdirecting the respondent No.2 to establish new building of TehsilHasanpur District Amroha at Village Karanpur Mafi, DistrictAmroha;D
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamusdirecting the respondent No.1 to decide the representation of thepetitioner dated 16.12.2015; within the stipulated period.”
2. The Division Bench was apprised of the fact that theEGovernment had granted its financial sanction for the construction of anew Tehsil office. Accordingly, in terms of the submission made by thefifth respondent, the High Court disposed of the petition by directing theState to take all necessary steps for the construction of a new Tehsiloffice for Hasanpur, District Amroha at Village Karanpur Mafi.
F3. The appellant filed a recall application[1] which was rejected bythe impugned order dated 13 October 2017. Challenging the order ofthe High Court declining to recall its previous order, these proceedingshave been instituted.
4. The Special Leave Petition discloses that the Tehsil of HasanpurGis situated in District Amroha in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The proposalfor the reconstruction of the Tehsil building of Tehsil Hasanpur wassanctioned. The appellant has averred that the PIL which was filed bythe fifth respondent before the Allahabad High Court for getting theTehsil building shifted to a new place, namely, Gata No.195 situated at
H1Numbered as Civil Miscellaneous Application No.259865 of 2017
ALEEMUDDIN v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
Village Karanpur Mafi was to subserve his personal interest. It hasbeen stated that, Gata No.196 situated at Village Karanpur Mafi belongsto the family of the fifth respondent, the original petitioner before theHigh Court. Hence he had a vested interest in seeking a direction of thisnature before the High Court so that the value of his land would increasewith a new tehsil building coming up in close proximity.
5. On 23 February 2018, notice was issued in these proceedingsand an order of status quo was passed.
6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State ofUttar Pradesh in which it has been submitted thus :
“The answering respondent respectfully submits that forreconstruction of building of tehsil Hasanpur vide order dated18.09.2002 issued by commissioner division Moradabad the landGata No.195/01M area 0.953 hectare situated in village KaranpurMafi Tehsil Hasanpur was acquired by the State Government.The said land was registered as non productive land in the revenuerecords.
2. The answering respondent respectfully submits that on14.04.2016 it was declared by the State Government that insteadof transferring the Tehsil Building to any other place it shall bereconstructed in Tehsil Hasanpur at the place of old Tehsil buildingby demolishing the old building.
3. The answering respondent respectfully submits that during thisperiod the Hon’ble High Court of judicature at Allahabad passedan order dated 06.01.2017 in public interest litigation Writ No.157of 2017 whereby the Hon’ble High Court directed to respondentNo.2 to take all necessary steps for construction of new Tehsiloffice Hasanpur District Amroha at Village Karanpur Mafi DistrictAmroha.
4. The answering respondent respectfully submits that incompliance of the order dated 06.01.2017 passed by the Hon’bleHigh Court Allahabad the then District Magistrate, Amroha videits letter dated 06.03.2017 recommended the construction of newtehsil office at gram Karanpur Mafi keeping in view the largerpublic interest.”
A
B
CDE
F
G
H
1106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.
A
A7. The submission of the State makes it patently clear that theState Government had taken a decision that instead of transferring theTehsil building to a new location, it should be reconstructed at the placeof the old Tehsil building. The implementation of this administrativedecision was pre-empted by the directions which were issued in the PILfiled by the fifth respondent.B
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fifth respondenthas not disputed the factual position that the fifth respondent and/or themembers of his family own a land adjacent to the place where the shiftingof the Tehsil building was sought before the High Court. That beingthe position, we are of the view that the petition which was filed in theCHigh Court by the fifth respondent was not a genuine petition in publicinterest but was intended to subserve the personal interest of the fifthrespondent.
9. Where a Tehsil building should be constructed is not a matterfor the High court to determine in the exercise of its writ jurisdictionDunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India. These are essentiallyadministrative matters and a decision has to be taken by the executive.This is hence an illustration of how a public interest litigation (PIL) hasbeen utilised to subserve a personal interest. The High Courts mustremain vigilant to the attempts to misuse PILs to subserve extraneousEand motivated purposes. Such efforts must be dealt with firmly. Highpre-rogative writs cannot be utilised for such ends.
10. The High Court was manifestly in error in its original orderdated 6 January 2017 in directing the State to construct a new Tehsiloffice for Hasanpur at a particular place. This is a matter which shouldFhave been left to the State Government to take an appropriate decision.
11. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the directionscontained in the order of the High Court dated 06 January, 2017. Wealso dispose of the petition by clarifying that it would be open to theState Government to take an appropriate decision in accordance withlaw.G
The Civil Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.
Nidhi Jain
Appeal disposed of.
H