Case: ALEEMUDDIN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Dr. Dhananjay A.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. 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 Honble High Court of judicature at Allahabad passed an order dated 06.01.2017 in public interest litigation Writ No.157 of 2017 whereby the Honble 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 Honble 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 State makes it patently clear that the State Government had taken a decision that instead of transferring the Tehsil building to a new location, it should be reconstructed at the place of the old Tehsil building. The implementation of this administrative decision was preempted by the directions which were issued in the PIL filed by the fifth respondent. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fifth respondent has not disputed the factual position that the fifth respondent and/or the members of his family own a land adjacent to the place where the shifting of the Tehsil building was sought before the High Court. That being the position, we are of the view that the petition which was filed in the High Court by the fifth respondent was not a genuine petition in public interest but was intended to subserve the personal interest of the fifth respondent. 9. Where a Tehsil building should be constructed is not a matter for the High court to determine in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. These are essentially administrative matters and a decision has to be taken by the executive. This is hence an illustration of how a public interest litigation (PIL) has been utilised to subserve a personal interest. The High Courts must remain vigilant to the attempts to misuse PILs to subserve extraneous and motivated purposes. Such efforts must be dealt with firmly. High prerogative writs cannot be utilised for such ends. 10. The High Court was manifestly in error in its original order dated 6 January 2017 in directing the State to construct a new Tehsil office for Hasanpur at a particular place. This is a matter which should have been left to the State Government to take an appropriate decision.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]7. The submission of the State makes it patently clear that the State Government had taken a decision that instead of transferring the Tehsil building to a new location, it should be reconstructed at the place of the old Tehsil building. The implementation of this administrative decision was preempted by the directions which were issued in the PIL filed by the fifth respondent.That being the position, we are of the view that the petition which was filed in the High Court by the fifth respondent was not a genuine petition in public interest but was intended to subserve the personal interest of the fifth respondent.9. Where a Tehsil building should be constructed is not a matter for the High court to determine in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. These are essentially administrative matters and a decision has to be taken by the executive. This is hence an illustration of how a public interest litigation (PIL) has been utilised to subserve a personal interest. The High Courts must remain vigilant to the attempts to misuse PILs to subserve extraneous and motivated purposes. Such efforts must be dealt with firmly. High prerogative writs cannot be utilised for such ends.10. The High Court was manifestly in error in its original order dated 6 January 2017 in directing the State to construct a new Tehsil office for Hasanpur at a particular place. This is a matter which should have been left to the State Government to take an appropriate decision.