SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 2300

PATNA HIGH COURT
Sudhir Singh, ACJ, Alok Kumar Pandey, J
Narendra Kumar & Others – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar & Others – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7201 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Satyendra Prasad Singh, Advocate, Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate, Ms. Diksha, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. P.K. Shahi, Advocate General

Public Interest Litigations require clear grounds and verified credentials from petitioners regarding their interest in the matter.

Headnote:The writ petition contests the allotment of land for development, alleging violations and lack of jurisdiction by the housing authorities. The court found no merit in the petitioners' arguments regarding locus standi and the mandatory requirements for filing a Public Interest Litigation. The court ruled that the petition did not meet the criteria and thus was disposed of, emphasizing adherence to legal protocols in PILs.

Table of Content
1. allegation of land usage in public interest. (Para 1 , 2)
2. locus standi and requisite declarations in pil. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's authority regarding the petition. (Para 5)
4. final order disposing of the writ application. (Para 7)

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

6 02-12-2025 The writ application has been filed for the following relief:

“That this writ petition is being filed on behalf of the petitioners above named for issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s). direction(s) commanding the Respondents and restraining Respondent No. 2, 3 & 4 for disturbing and damaging the LIG Park and for handing over the physical portion of the land of the park in the garb of allotment of Plot No. T/476, which has been alleged to have been made by the Housing Board vide Allotment No. 7961 dated 30.10.1981, which had already been cancelled by the Hon’ble Governor, Bihar, Patna vide Gazette Notification No. 1320 dated 04.08.1993 and to restrain Respondent No. 5 from taking forceful possession with the help of ante-social element and with the help of criminals.”

2. In response to the grievance raised by the petitioners, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4, whereby the report of the DCLR has been discussed in Annexure R/5. The said enquiry report clearly indicates that the land allotted to the private respondent No. 5 does not fall within the area of the park in question. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the petitioner has not made the mandatory declaration required under the High Court Rules for filing a Public Interest Litigation.

3. A one-line statement has been made in paragraph No. 2 of the writ application that the petitioner is a citizen of India and resides within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Except for this assertion, there is nothing on record to show his locus to file the present Public Interest Litigation.

4. The parameters laid down in Chapter XXI-CC of the Rules of the High Court at Patna, 1916, for filing PIL matters, are as follows:-

“6. To facilitate the aforesaid purpose, a petitioner in a PIL shall state in clear terms the relief prayed for in paragraph-1 of the petition and the grounds in paragraph-2. In paragraph-3, he must give full and complete details of himself to reveal his interest, credentials and qualification relevant for the PIL, along with a declaration that he has no personal interest, direct or indirect, in the subject matter of the PIL. In addition, ordinarily, the petitioner is required to set out all relevant facts with supporting data, reports, etc. 7. After arriving at a prima facie satisfaction regarding the credentials of the petitioner and the correctness of the contents of the petition, if the Court finds that the petition was filed by busybodies for extraneous or ulterior motives, the Bench may impose exemplary costs.”

5. Considering the aforesaid facts, we find no reason to pass any further order in the present writ application.

6. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of.

7. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(Sudhir Singh, ACJ)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top