Allahabad High Court
MANINDRA PANDEYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The petition was dismissed due to lack of standing and bona‑fide intent.
Summary
The petitioner, a self‑described agriculturist with only a 9th‑standard education, filed a public‑interest litigation seeking directions for the construction of water tanks in villages and a fair inquiry against a contractor. The court examined the petitioner's credentials and questioned his ability to understand the subject matter, noting that he appeared to be a mere name‑giver with another party likely behind the filing. The petitioner's counsel subsequently requested withdrawal of the petition. The court held that the petitioner lacked the requisite standing and bona‑fide intent to pursue the relief sought. Consequently, the petition was dismissed with a warning to the petitioner and a caution to his counsel.
Issues considered
- What is the locus standi of a petitioner with limited educational background in a public interest litigation?
- Whether the petition is bona fide and can be entertained by the court?
Subjects
- public interest litigation
- locus standi
- standing
- petition dismissal
- procedural deficiency
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1997 of 2026
Manindra Pandey
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and 4 others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashish Kumar Dwivedi, Rashid Ali
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.K. Goyal, A.C.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 direction to ensure that construction of water tanks in
various villages is undertaken after following standard operating
procedure for construction of water tanks and seeking a fair inquiry into
the complaint.
2. The petition inter alia has been filed against respondent no. 5, a
contractor.
3. When the matter came up before this Court, looking to the subject
matter of the petition, annexures filed along with the petition, a doubt
arose qua the credentials of the petitioner who had indicated his
occupation as agriculture and the petitioner was directed to disclose his
educational standard.
4. Today, a supplementary affidavit has been filed inter alia indicating
that the petitioner is 9th pass.
5. From the credentials and educational standard of the petitioner and the
nature of petition filed, it is obvious that the petitioner cannot and does
not have the understanding pertaining to the subject matter of the petition
and essentially he is only a name giver and someone else is behind the
filing of the present petition whose intention cannot be bonafide.
6. Faced with the said situation, counsel for the petitioner seeks
WPIL No. 1997 of 2026
2
withdrawal of the petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed with a
warning to the petitioner and caution to the counsel.
(Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)
October 1, 2026
nd/AKShukla
Digitally signed by :-
NISITH DEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…