Avinash Verma v. STATE OF U.P. THRU ADDL. CHIEF SECY. ENVIRONMENT LKO AND ORS.
WPIL/98/2025 · 2025-02-06
Attau Rahman Masoodi, Subhash Vidyarthi
Public Interest Litigationbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 121363 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 121363 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:7662-DB Court No. - 1 Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 98 of 2025 Petitioner :- Avinash Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Addl. Chief Secy. Environment Lko And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Uma Kant Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Ashok Kumar Verma,Mohan Singh Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Sri Uma Kant Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Isha Mittal, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, Sri Ashok Kumar Verma, the learned counsel for the U.P. Pollution Control Board, Sri Mohan Singh, the learned counsel for the Gram Sabha and perused the records.
2. By means of the instant petition purportedly filed in public interest, the petitioner has sought issuance of a direction to the State authorities to take action against the opposite party no.5, who is allegedly operating a brick kiln in violation of provisions of law.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner as well as public at large is aggrieved by the illegal operation of the brick kiln.
4. In the description of petitioner given in the memo of writ petition his address is shown as Village & Post Chaukiya, Tehsil and Thana Lambhuwa, Pargana Chanda, District Sultanpur. The brick kiln in question is situated in Gram Sabha Deoria
Aayupur, Block Jaisinghpur, Tehsil Jaisinghpur, District Sultanpur. In para 4 of the writ petition the petitioner has stated that he belongs to the same gram sabha, which statement is false on the face of the record as per the description of the petitioner and the opposite party no.5 given in the memo of writ petition. In the description of the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition he has disclosed his occupation as 'social worker [member of Apna Dal (S)] from which it appears that the petitioner is earning his livelihood only from so called social service.
5. The writ petition does not satisfy the real purpose of public interest litigation. Thus, we decline to entertain the writ petition. The petition being is accordingly dismissed. [Subhash Vidyarthi, J.] [A.R. Masoodi, J.] Order Date :- 6.2.2025 Ram. Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench