Allahabad High Court
NATHUversusSTATE OF UP AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
A public interest litigation must be supported by substantive, specific evidence, and cannot be dismissed on the basis of cursory, unsubstantiated allegations.
Summary
The petitioner filed a public interest litigation seeking a court order directing respondents No.2 and No.3 to demolish an alleged illegal construction on a public road, relying on an annexure purported to be a map. The court observed that the annexure was merely an authorization for filing the petition and no actual map was on record. The petitioner's representation was found to be cursory and lacking specific details about the alleged encroachment. The court held that PILs must be supported by substantive evidence and cannot be based on vague allegations. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for failure to substantiate the claims.
Issues considered
- What is the adequacy of the evidence required to support a public interest litigation seeking demolition of alleged illegal construction?
Subjects
- public interest litigation
- illegal construction
- encroachment
- petition dismissal
- procedural deficiency
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1207 of 2026
Nathu
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and 3 others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Satya Prakash Gupta, Jai Prakash Gupta
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 seeking a direction to respondents no. 2 and 3 to demolish the
illegal construction raised by respondent no.4 'on the public road as
shown in the map annexed therein as Annexure no.1'.
2. A perusal of the petition indicates that Annexure-1 is only a purported
authorisation given in the name of the petitioner to file the petition, there
is no map available on record.
3. Further, a perusal of the representation indicates that the same is
absolutely cursory, does not contain any particulars pertaining to the
alleged encroachment.
4. Filing of PILs, based on cursory representation without substantiating
the allegations, cannot be countenanced. The petition is therefore,
dismissed.
(Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)
May 7, 2026
AHA/Jyotsana
Digitally signed by :-
AFZAL HUSAIN ABBASI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…