Allahabad High Court
BAKE SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
A writ petition cannot be entertained for the execution of a magistrate's order where the appropriate remedy lies in proceeding before the competent authority, and such filing amounts to misuse of the process.
Summary
The petitioner, Bake Singh, filed a public interest litigation under Article 226 seeking a mandamus directing the State respondent to enforce a City Magistrate's order dated 11‑11‑2025 that ordered removal of an illegal encroachment on road land (Gata Nos.161/162/163). The State, through its standing counsel, objected that the petition was not maintainable because the relief sought could be obtained by approaching the appropriate authority for execution of the magistrate's order. The Court examined whether a writ petition is the proper forum for enforcing a lower‑court order and considered the allegation of misuse of the judicial process. It held that the petition amounted to a misuse of the process since the correct remedy lay in filing execution proceedings before the competent authority. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition while granting the petitioner liberty to pursue the relief through the appropriate forum. The decision underscores the limited scope of Article 226 writ jurisdiction in matters that can be addressed by ordinary administrative or execution proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether a public interest litigation under Article 226 is maintainable for the purpose of enforcing a City Magistrate's order removing an illegal encroachment.
- Whether filing such a writ petition constitutes a misuse of the judicial process when the relief can be obtained before the competent authority.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226
- Public Premises Act — s. Section 3
Subjects
- Public Interest Litigation
- Article 226
- Mandamus
- Misuse of Process
- Execution of Magistrate Order
- Public Premises Act
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 675 of 2026
Bake Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anil Kumar Chaudhary
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 21
HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the State-respondents.
2. The instant Public Interest Litigation has been preferred under Article 226
of the Constitution, inter alia, seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing
the respondent no.2, to remove the illegal encroachment over Gata
Nos.161/162/163 which is recorded as Road pursuant to the order dated
11.11.2025 passed by City Magistrate, District: Mau in proceeding u/s 3
of Public Premises Act in between State Vs. Arjun Sharma and other.
(ii) issue any suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble court
may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
(iii) award the cost of the writ petition (PIL) in favour of the petitioner."
3. At the outset, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents has
raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the instant
petition. He submits that the present Public Interest Litigation, which has
been preferred for execution of the order dated 11.11.2025 passed by the
City Magistrate/Prescribed Authority, Mau, cannot be entertained, as the
same can be pursued in appropriate proceedings before the competent
authority/forum for effective compliance in accordance with law.
4. In such a situation, we find that the instant proceeding amounts to a
misuse of the process of law and, as such, we do not approve of the said
practice. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to agitate the relief
WPIL No. 675 of 2026
2
before the competent authority/forum in accordance with law.
5. With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition is dismissed.
March 19, 2026
Mukesh Kr.
(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MUKESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…