Chief Justice's

Court...........................................................A.F.R.

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 838 of

2021

Petitioner :- Rahul Singh

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Daya Shankar

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Sanjay Yadav,Chief Justice

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

(As per Vivek Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing

Counsel for the State.

2. This petition has been filed by an individual claiming himself

to be a general member of the village & Post-Sdhauna,

Mehnajpur, Tehsil-Lalganj, District-Azamgarh presently

residing at Avadhoot Bhagwan Ram Kushth Sewa Ashram,

Jalilpur, Chandauli, District-Chandauli for issuance of "a writ

order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the

respondent authorities to enquire the matter against respondent

no.6 under Public Money Recovery Act and etc. Act and also

recovered the money from him, which was taken under the

Members of Parliament Local Area Development

(M.P.L.A.D.)/M.L.A. (Member of Legislative Assembly)

Scheme in accordance with law."

3. We requested learned counsel for the petitioner to provide us

some material in the form of an Audit Report of the

Comptroller and Auditor General or any other competent

authority, which may have been taken as bedrock for this

petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this

petition has been filed on the basis of a news paper cutting

published on 8th July, 2020 in a vernacular news paper-'Amar

Ujala'.

4. When this Court asked learned counsel for contesting

petitioner to show, as to whether, such news paper cuttings are

admissible under the provisions of Indian Evidence Act, learned

counsel for the petitioner submits that since it has been

published in a leading vernacular news paper, it can be treated

as piece of evidence.

5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that

news paper reports are not admissible in evidence and this

petition is nothing but a misuse of the process of the forum of

Public Interest Litigation (PIL).

6. After hearing learned counsel for contesting parties and going

through the pleadings, it is evident that provisions of Section 81

of the Evidence Act, even when read in totality then also the

presumption of genuineness attached under Section 81 to a

news paper report, cannot be treated as proof of the facts

reported therein.

7. In case of Laxmi Raj Shetty and another Vs. State of Tamil

Nadu; AIR 1988 SC 1274, para-5, it is held that facts stated in

a news paper are hearsay in nature. They are inadmissible in

evidence unless maker of statement is examined. Judicial notice

of facts stated in news paper cannot also be taken.

8. In case of B.Singh Vs. Union of India and others; AIR

2004 SC 1923 (1924, 1929), it is held that petitioner not

claiming to have any personal knowledge of allegations made

against respondent in said representation and paper cuttings of

news item and is also not aware of authenticity or otherwise of

news item; the news paper report per se, not admissible in

evidence. Supreme Court held that petitioner is busy body bent

upon self publicity. No element of public interest involved in

the petition and dismissed the petition filed with oblique motive

as misconceived with exemplary costs. Supreme Court further

held that it is open for court to examine the locus standi of

petitioner to veil on public interest and see private malice etc.

lurking behind it. Similarly, in case of Ravinder Kumar

Sharma Vs. State of Assam; (1999) 7 SCC 435, it has been

held that presumption of genuineness created under Section 81

of the Evidence Act does not give rise to any presumption of

genuineness about news paper reports and it is not to be treated

as proof of facts stated in them. Such statements are merely

hearsay.

9. Thus, in view of said legal position, when pet