SAURABH SHANKAR SRIVASTAVA v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ITS ADDL.CHIEF SECY./PRIN.SECY.HOUSING AND URBAN PLANNING DEPTT. LKO.AND 3 ORS.
WPIL/914/2025 · 2025-09-16
Arun Bhansali, Jaspreet Singh
Public Interest Litigationbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 161716 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 161716 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 914 of 2025 Chief Justice's Court HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.
1. This petition, purportedly in public interest, has been filed by the petitioner, a practising Advocate, seeking to question the validity of the Circular dated 08.03.2001 issued by the respondents, inter alia, requiring the allottees to get the name of the spouse included in the registered document pertaining to the transfer of the property allotted to them.
2. A perusal of the petition indicates that the petitioner has questioned the validity of the Circular after 25 years since it was notified. The petition lacks in facts and particulars pertaining to the implementation of the Circular over a period of 25 years as to whether any allottee, on account of the said Circular, has been inconvenienced and/or has been deprived of allotment and aggrieved of the same, he has questioned the validity of the said Circular. The exercise by the petitioner, apparently, is academic, undertaken in the chambers. PIL filed only by way of academics cannot be entertained.
3. Besides the above, the petitioner, except for producing the Circular (Anexure-1), has not even indicated whether after coming to know of the said circular, any effort was made by him by approaching the respondents seeking reconsideration/questioning the justification for the issuance of the Circular. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : In Person Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ratnesh Chandra, Nishant Shukla, Akash Sinha Saurabh Shankar Srivastava .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. through its Addl.Chief Secy./Prin.Secy.Housing and Urban Planning Deptt. Lko. and 3 others .....Respondent(s)
4. In view of above, we do not find any reason to entertain the present petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. September 16, 2025 P.Sri./Kanhaiya WPIL No. 914 of 2025 2 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.) Digitally signed by :- PUNEET SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench