Allahabad High Court
DINESH KUMAR VISHWAKARMAversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 7 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR
Holding
The petition is dismissed as the allegations are unsubstantiated and the writ petition is misconceived.
Summary
The petitioner, Dinesh Kumar Vishwakarma, filed a public interest litigation seeking a writ of mandamus directing the State authorities to take action against a village clerk and gram pradhan for allegedly selling clay from a pond and to restrain such activity. The petitioner alleged that respondents 6 to 8, in collusion with private contractors, were excavating soil from Plot No. 599, recorded as a pond, causing loss to the State exchequer, and claimed that prior representations had been ignored. The Court examined the evidence, including a Lekhpal report dated 4‑Nov‑2025 and an Executive Engineer report dated 22‑Aug‑2025, which indicated that the soil extraction pertained to Plot No. 474, not Plot No. 599, and that proper permission had been obtained for that extraction. The Mine Inspector's report further corroborated the absence of any digging at Plot No. 599. Finding the petitioner's allegations unsupported by cogent evidence, the Court held the writ petition misconceived and dismissed it.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing authorities to act against alleged illegal extraction of pond clay in the absence of substantiating evidence
Subjects
- public interest litigation
- writ of mandamus
- environmental protection
- illegal extraction
- evidence
- High Court of Allahabad
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2349 of 2026
Dinesh Kumar Vishwakarma
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And 7 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Hriday Narayan Pandey, Prem Chandra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C.,
Vaibhav Tripathi
Court No. - 51
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.
1. Heard Sri H.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 & 6, Sri Sunil Kumar
Singh holding brief of Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for
the respondent no. 5 and Sri Prakhar Pandey, Advocate holding brief of
Sri Vaibhav Tripathi for the respondent no. 7.
2. The present petition has been filed for the following relief:-
"(i) issue a writ or direction/order in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondent authorities to take appropriate
action against the halka lekhpal as well as gram pradhan for
selling the clay of the pond and same may be restrained."
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
respondent nos. 6 to 8 in connivance with certain private contractors are
digging the soil from Plot No. 599, recorded as pond and selling it
causing loss to the State Exchequer. It is further contended that for
necessary enquiries various representations have been made to the
appropriate authorities, but no action has been taken.
4. Considering the arguments made by counsel for the petitioner and
having perused the record, it is evident that the allegation made by the
petitioner is not substantiated by any cogent evidence on record. On the
other hand, the report of Lekhpal, dated 4.11.2025, filed at page 53 of the
writ petition, shows that there is no evidence of digging pond over plot
WPIL No. 2349 of 2026
2
no. 599. The report of the Executive Engineer, dated 22.8.2025, annexed
alongwith the writ petition shows that by the order of District Magistrate
soil was taken out from pond, recorded over Plot No. 474, relating to
Village Chaukikalan, Tehsil Machhalishahar, District Jaunpur. The Mine
Inspector, Jaunpur, in his report dated 4.6.2025, filed as Annexure 4 to the
writ petition, shows that for digging of soil from Plot No. 474, requisite
permission from the District Magistrate to the National Highway
Authority of India is available on record and there is no evidence of any
digging of soil from Plot No. 599.
5. In view of the aforesaid facts on record, it is evident that the allegations
made by the petitioner in the present writ petition are unsubstantiated. The
writ petition being misconceived is accordingly dismissed.
(Arun Kumar,J.)
September 30, 2026
Ranjeet Sahu
Digitally signed by :-
RANJEET SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…