Aleemuddin vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.11703 OF 2018 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.4970 OF 2018)

ALEEMUDDIN .. Appellant(s) Versus

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS .. Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

Leave granted.

1. 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 Signature Not Verified District Amroha at Village Karanpur Mafi, District Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date: 2018.12.06 Amroha; 13:37:02 IST Reason:

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to decide the representation of the petitioner 2

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 application1 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

1 Numbered as Civil Miscellaneous Application No.259865 of 2017 3

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 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 4

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 5

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.

11. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the

directions contained in the order of the High Court dated

06 January, 2017. We also dispose of the petition by

clarifying that it would be open to the State Government to

take an appropriate decision in accordance with law.

The Civil Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.

.............................J. (DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD)

.............................J. ( M.R. SHAH ) New Delhi, Dated: NOVEMBER 30, 2018. 6

ITEM NO.56 COURT NO.13 SECTION XI

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).4970/2018

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13-10- 2017 in CMRA No. 259865/2017 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad)

ALEEMUDDIN Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. Respondent(s)

(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.24253/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

Date : 30-11-2018 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, AOR Mr. Wasim Ahmad, Adv. Ms. Aditi Gupta, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Ms. Charu Singhal, Adv. Ms. Stuti Chopra, Adv. Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, AOR

Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Leave granted.

The Civil Appeal is disposed of in terms of the Signed

Reportable Judgment. No costs.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(GEETA AHUJA) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER ( The Reportable Judgment is placed on the file)