Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 109405 (ALL)

BRIJMOHAN v. STATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS

WPIL/2336/2024 · 2025-02-18

Arun Bhansali, Kshitij Shailendra

Public Interest Litigationbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:24167-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2336 of 2024 Petitioner :- Brijmohan Respondent :- State of U.P. and 5 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Dutta Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Avinash Chandra Srivastava,S.C., Rajiv Singh, Vaibhav Tripathi Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to respondent nos. 2 to 4 to take appropriate action and consider and decide the grievance of the petitioner as per representation dated 24.09.2024 & 08.11.2024 pertaining to the land bearing Gata No. 694-M situated at Village Shikri Char Hissa, Tehsil Kirawali, District Agra. 2. A perusal of the writ petition indicates that earlier the petitioner had filed Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.2122 of 2024 which came up before learned Single Judge on 05.11.2024, wherein the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the petition did not disclose any cause of action and, therefore, the same could not be considered in the writ petition which was in the form of a public interest litigation and the same was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy. 3. It appears that the petitioner instead of availing alternative remedy, as per the liberty given by the learned Single Judge, after making a fresh representation on 08.11.2024, has filed the present PIL. 4. Once an earlier PIL was disposed of by learned Single Judge by holding that the relief claimed cannot be considered in the writ petition, in the form of PIL and liberty was granted to avail alternative remedy, filing of fresh PIL, after giving a fresh notice, cannot be termed as availing alternative remedy. 5. Filing of PIL all over again, once the earlier PIL was disposed of by learned Single Judge, cannot be countenanced. The PIL is, therefore, dismissed. 6. The petitioner would be free to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. Order Date :- 19.2.2025 Sandeep/AKShukla (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad