1. Public interest litigation seeking direction for construction of a government building at a specific location — High Court order directing construction — Challenge to the order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 1824
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, M.R. Shah, JJ.
Aleemuddin - Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh - Respondent
Civil Appeal No.11703 of 2018 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No.4970 of 2018)
Decided On : 30-11-2018
Important Points
The decision of where a Tehsil building should be constructed is an administrative matter and should be left to the executive. High Courts must remain vigilant to prevent the misuse of PILs for personal interests.
Subject
Administrative Law - Public Interest Litigation
Act Referred
Headnote
PIL Misuse - Tehsil Building - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - 18.09.2002, 14.04.2016, 06.01.2017 - The court found that the PIL filed by the fifth respondent was not in public interest but intended to serve personal interest. It emphasized that the decision of where a Tehsil building should be constructed is an administrative matter and should be left to the executive. The court highlighted the misuse of PILs and the need for vigilance by the High Courts to prevent such misuse. The directions of the High Court were set aside, allowing the State Government to make an appropriate decision.
Fact of the Case:
A petition was filed before the Allahabad High Court seeking the establishment of a new tehsil building for Tehsil Hasanpur at a specific location. The State Government had already granted financial sanction for the construction of a new Tehsil office. The appellant challenged the order of the High Court declining to recall its previous order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the PIL was not in public interest but intended to serve personal interest. It emphasized that the decision of where a Tehsil building should be constructed is an administrative matter and should be left to the executive. The court highlighted the misuse of PILs and the need for vigilance by the High Courts to prevent such misuse. The directions of the High Court were set aside, allowing the State Government to make an appropriate decision.
Issues: Misuse of PIL, Administrative Decision on Tehsil Building Location
Ratio Decidendi: The decision of where a Tehsil building should be constructed is an administrative matter and should be left to the executive. High Courts must remain vigilant to prevent the misuse of PILs for personal interests.
Final Decision: The directions of the High Court were set aside, allowing the State Government to make an appropriate decision. The Civil Appeal was disposed of with no costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, Wasim Ahmad, Ms. Aditi Gupta, Advocates, For the Appellants; Ms. Charu Singhal, Ms. Stuti Chopra, Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Ashok K. Srivastava, Advocates, For the Respondents
Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, Wasim Ahmad, Ms. Aditi Gupta, Advocates, For the Appellants; Ms. Charu Singhal, Ms. Stuti Chopra, Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Ashok K. Srivastava, Advocates, For the Respondents
Table of Contents
2. Contention that the petition was filed in public interest — Counter-argument that the litigation was motivated by personal interest to increase the value of adjacent land. (Para 4 )
3. The petition was a misuse of public interest litigation to serve personal interests — Determining the location of government buildings is an administrative matter for the executive. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
4. High prerogative writs under Article 226 cannot be used to interfere in administrative executive decisions or to subserve personal interests through the guise of public interest litigation. (Para 9 , 10 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court directions set aside — State Government permitted to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law. (Para 11 )
6. Can a High Court direct the government to construct a building at a specific location under Article 226?
No. The determination of where a government building should be constructed is essentially an administrative matter to be decided by the executive, and it is not for the High Court to determine in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. (Para 9 , 10 )
7. What is the court's view on using Public Interest Litigation (PIL) for personal gain?
The court held that PILs must not be utilized to subserve personal or extraneous motivated purposes. High Courts must remain vigilant against such misuse, and high prerogative writs cannot be used for such ends. (Para 8 , 9 )
8. What happens when a PIL is found to be motivated by personal interest rather than public interest?
Such petitions are not considered genuine public interest litigations. If the court finds the litigation was intended to subserve personal interest, the directions issued based on such petitions can be set aside. (Para 8 , 11 )
JUDGMENT
Dr. Dhananjay A.Y. Chandrachud, J. - Leave granted.
A petition was filed purportedly in public interest before the Allahabad High Court by the fifth respondent. In his petition, the fifth respondent sought a direction to the State Government to establish a new tehsil building for Tehsil Hasanpur at Village Karanpur Mafi in the District of Amroha in Uttar Pradesh. The relief which he sought was in the following terms :
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to establish new building of Tehsil Hasanpur District Amroha at Village Karanpur Mafi, District Amroha;
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 16.12.2015; within the stipulated period."
2. The Division Bench was apprised of the fact that the Government had granted its financial sanction for the construction of a new Tehsil office. Accordingly, in terms of the submission made by the fifth respondent, the High Court disposed of the petition by directing the State to take all necessary steps for the construction of a new Tehsil office for Hasanpur, District Amroha at Village Karanpur Mafi.
3. The appellant filed a recall application (Numbered as Civil Miscellaneous Application No.259865 of 2017) which was rejected by the impugned order dated 13 October 2017. Challenging the order of the High Court declining to recall its previous order, these proceedings have been instituted.
4. The Special Leave Petition discloses that the Tehsil of Hasanpur is situated in District Amroha in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The proposal for the reconstruction of the Tehsil building of Tehsil Hasanpur was sanctioned. The appellant has averred that the PIL which was filed by the fifth respondent before the Allahabad High Court for getting the Tehsil building shifted to a new place, namely, Gata No.195 situated at Village Karanpur Mafi was to subserve his personal interest. It has been stated that, Gata No.196 situated at Village Karanpur Mafi belongs to the family of the fifth respondent, the original petitioner before the High Court. Hence he had a vested interest in seeking a direction of this nature before the High Court so that the value of his land would increase with a new tehsil building coming up in close proximity.
5. On 23 February 2018, notice was issued in these proceedings and an order of status quo was passed.
6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh in which it has been submitted thus :
"The answering respondent respectfully submits that for reconstruction of building of tehsil Hasanpur vide order dated 18.09.2002 issued by commissioner division Moradabad the land Gata No.195/01M area 0.953 hectare situated in village Karanpur Mafi Tehsil Hasanpur was acquired by the State Government. The said land was registered as non productive land in the revenue records.
2. The answering respondent respectfully submits that on 14.04.2016 it was declared by the State Government that instead of transferring the Tehsil Building to any other place it shall be reconstructed in Tehsil Hasanpur at the place of old Tehsil building by demolishing the old building.
3. The answering respondent respectfully submits that during this period the Hon'ble High Court of judicature at Allahabad passed an order dated 06.01.2017 in public interest litigation Writ No.157 of 2017 whereby the Hon'ble High Court directed to respondent No.2 to take all necessary steps for construction of new Tehsil office Hasanpur District Amroha at Village Karanpur Mafi District Amroha.
4. The answering respondent respectfully submits that in compliance of the order dated 06.01.2017 passed by the Hon'ble High Court Allahabad the then District Magistrate, Amroha vide its letter dated 06.03.2017 recommended the construction of new tehsil office at gram Karanpur Mafi keeping in view the larger public interest."
7. The submission of the
