Allahabad High Court
RAM NARESHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
An advocate lacking any direct interest cannot maintain a PIL, and such a petition must be dismissed for lack of standing.
Summary
The petitioner, an advocate, filed a public interest litigation seeking a court direction that the State transfer employees working under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) from one block to another as per state orders. The court noted that the petitioner offered no material to demonstrate any personal interest or standing in the matter despite claiming to act in public interest. It held that mere status as an advocate does not confer locus standi to file a PIL on administrative decisions concerning scheme employees. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of standing. The judgment underscores the requirement of a direct interest for PILs and rejects frivolous filings. No substantive examination of the merits of the transfer request was undertaken.
Issues considered
- Whether an advocate, without any personal interest, has locus standi to file a public interest litigation challenging administrative transfers of MGNREGA employees.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- public interest litigation
- locus standi
- MGNREGA
- transfer of employees
- judicial activism
- standing
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1189 of 2026
Ram Naresh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and 4 others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajeev Kumar Srivastava for Sanjay
Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Jagdish Pathak (S.C.)
Chief Justice's Court
HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
1. This petition, purportedly in public interest, has been filed by the
petitioner, an Advocate, seeking a direction to the State authorities to
transfer the employees working under the project of Mahatma Gandhi
National Rural Employment Gurantee Act ('MGNREGA') from one
Block to another Block in terms of the directions issued by the State from
time to time.
2. A perusal of the petition indicates that though the petitioner has
indicated himself to be an Advocate, he has made submissions pertaining
to the working of NREGA Scheme and the persons working therein,
however, no material has been produced to indicate as to how the
petitioner, an Advocate, has any concern with the said work of the
NREGA Scheme and the employees working thereat.
3. Filing of PIL, at the behest of someone by the petitioner only because
he is an Advocate, cannot be countenanced. The petition is therefore,
dismissed.
(Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)
May 6, 2026
AHA/Sazia
Digitally signed by :-
AFZAL HUSAIN ABBASI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…