SOCIALIST FRONT, ALLAHABAD AND TWO OTHERS/ANAND MOHAN vs UNION OF INDIA

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2007 Supreme(All) 590

[2007(3) ADJ 293]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : A.K. YOG, J.
SOCIALIST FRONT, ALLAHABAD AND TWO OTHERS/ANAND MOHAN —Applicants/Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ——Respondents
(Civil Misc. Intervention Application No. 130413 of 2006 In Civil Misc. Letter (PIL) Writ Petition No. 2547 of 2005, decided on 9th March, 2007)

Advocates appeared:
Ravi Kiran Jain, K.K. Roy and D.S. Mishra for the Applicants; A.K. Mishra, Ajeet Kumar, K.C. Sinha and S.C., for the Respondents.

Headnote:(A) Public Interest Litigation—Interim direction of High Court in Writ Petition, in nature of P.I.L.—Application for recall of that direction—In writ petition, High Court directed removal and shifting of statue of Mahatma Gandhi, father of nation, installed in triangular park on Balson crossing near Bhardwaj Park, Allahabad—On ground that it has been installed in violation of earlier order of High Court restraining Government/Local Administration to install any statue on road crossings and it is hazardous to traffic movement, obstructs and hampers vision of traffic coming from other sides—It was also found that it jeopardises safety of general public, is breach of standard traffic norms and violates fundamental right of life and property—In recall application plea of emotions, sentiments and feeling of public for Mahatma Gandhi and several other grounds were taken—High Court rejected all grounds holding that issue of public safety, fundamental right of life and property, directions of High Court and standard of traffic norms—Cannot be compromised or ignored for sentiments, emotions and feelings of few persons—Rule of law has to prevail on logic, emotions, sentiments and personal views—It was also found by High Court that applicants, claiming to be an organisation of several respectable persons of society, have no statutory enforceable right to maintain or install statues or do anything on public roads which is hazardous to public life or violates directions of High Court—Government or Local Administration also has no such right to grant permission of installing statue against norms set up by experts of public safety. [Constitution of India, Articles 226 and 21]. [Paras 21, 23, 24, 29 to 38]
(B) Public Interest Litigation—Application for recall of interim direction passed therein by High Court—Filed only after passing of that, concealing materials facts, without filing impleadment application, without following Rules of Court and for obtaining an order which will be against law—High Court refused to recall that direction and directed applicants to pay costs of Rs. 30,000/- for filing application in most irresponsible manner and for wasting time of High Court by not approaching with clean hands etc. [Constitution of India, Articles 226 and 21—Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, Chapter IX, Rules 1, 4, 7(c), 7(f) and 21(2)]. [Paras 39 to 43, 46, 48, 50 to 53 and 55]

JUDGMENT

BACKGROUND

Hon’ble A.K. Yog, J.— The prayer made in the application is as follows :

“It is, therefore, Most Respectfully prayed to this Hon’ble Court that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to recall its order dated 8.5.2006 directing to shift the statue of the father of the nation from tri square situated before the Bharadwaj park, Allahabad or pass such other appropriate order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper without disturbing the statue from its place.”

2. Shri Ravi Kiran Jain, Sr. Advocate, submitted that the prayer in the application ‘.......to recall its order dated 8.5.2006.....’ be treated as prayer to review order dated 8.5.2006 passed by the Bench comprising A. K. Yog and Prakash Krishna, JJ. Consequently, Court passed order dated 31.7.2006 directing this Application to be listed before said Bench of A. K. Yog and Prakash Krishna, JJ. “at the earliest”.

3. Meanwhile Applicants, filed two ‘Interim Applications’ in the above ‘Intervention’ Application.

4. Civil Misc. Application No. 263541 of 2006 was presented on 6.12.2006 and the prayer made therein is :

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that since the directions issued in the instant writ petition are in conflict with the judgement and orders of the two Division Benches namely judgement and order dated 15-12-2000 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9212 of 1985, Anand Mohan v. Administration of Allahabad and others, and judgement and order dated 31.7.2006 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40443 of 2006, Sharad Chand Mishra v. State of U.P. the matter be referred to a Larger Bench and papers be laid before Hon’ble The Chief Justice for that purpose.

In the alternative various orders or direction issued in the writ petition be recalled/clarified except those orders or directions which have already been implemented.”

5. Civil Misc. Application No. 263539 of 2006 was presented on 6-12-2006 and the prayer made is :

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Misc. Application be heard either before the Civil Misc. Intervention Application No. 130413 of 2006 or alongwith that Application."

6. When above Application/s were listed before the Bench (A.K. Yog and Prakash Krishna, JJ. the Court passed order dated 8.12.2006; relevant extract is reproduced :

“…………..

When this Application No. 130413 of 2006 came up before Court (Bench comprising A.K. Yog and R.K. Rastogi, JJ.) learned Counsel for the Applicant (Sri Jain) objected to the hearing of this application and submitted that this Application (since the Court was to review its earlier order dated 8-5-2006) be heard by the Bench which had passed earlier order dated 8-5-2006, i.e. A.K. Yog and Prakash Krishna, JJ.

…………….

Above application hence listed today before this Bench (specially constituted for PH/Tied-up cases).

One of us, Prakash Krishna, J., expressed his inability and declined to hear the case. Sri Jain, in an unusual manner, insisted upon disclosing the reason for ‘declining’ and also to place on the issue of ‘jurisdiction’/hearing the Writ Petition by the Bench presided by A.K. Yog, J.

Undue eagerness exhibited by Sri Jain to make further submission—after one of us declined to participate on the Bench, could not be appreciated and he was told that he can make his submission—when case is listed next before Court on 21.12.2006.

............................

To save precious time of the Court, and eliminate doubt of any nature as well as to re-assure that case is being heard by competent Court we direct the record to be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice and, if deemed appropriate, to reallocate/nominate the bench, for hearing of the said application and the Writ Petition.” (Italicised to lay emphasis)

7. In view of the above order, Hon’ble the Chief Justice passed following order :

“If one Hon. Judge of a DB is not willing to hear a recall application then it has to be heard by the other Hon. Judge alone. Let the mater be placed before Hon. A.K.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document