Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:41361 Reserved Court No. - 49 Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 576 of 2025 Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Rai,Satya Prakash Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi,C.S.C. Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J. 1. Heard Mr. Satya Prakash Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of the motion to admit this petition to hearing and Mr. Shashi Prakash Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General assisted by Mr. Krishna Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner in public interest praying that a mandamus be issued to the General Manager and the Chief Engineer, Banaras Locomotive Workshop/Diesel Locomotive Workshop at Varanasi, ordering them to remove illegal obstruction done by them by closing the pathway for the villagers of Village North Kakarmatta, Varanasi and further to restore the same to its previous position until an alternative way is provided to the natives of the village. 3. For one, the petitioner has not complied with provisions of Chapter XXII Rule 3- A of the Rules of Court, inasmuch as beyond saying that he is an RTI Activist and doing social work for maintaining social harmony in society, he has not shown his bona fides by pleading details of similar causes that he has taken up in the past. It is also averred by him that he has no personal interest in the cause and would not be benefited personally by the outcome of this public interest litigation. But, he says in paragraph no. 3, on quite a contradictory note that he is a native of village Kakarmatta. If the petitioner is a resident of the same village, obviously this public interest litigation has been filed for his own interest as well. On this ground alone, we think that this public interest litigation is not maintainable. Assuming that the petitioner has acted less for himself and more for the interest of the community or residents of village Kakarmatta, the relief, that the petitioner seeks essentially, discloses a cause of action under the private law, where the petitioner, as a resident of village, would have a cause of action to bring a suit before the competent Court of ordinary original civil jurisdiction for the relief that the petitioner seeks. There is no violation of a public duty by the respondents pleaded or shown by the petitioner, but a cause of action against the respondents that is based on an easementary right of some kind, may be an easement of necessity. The petitioner pleads that the village has a population of ten thousand with five hundred constructed kachcha and pakka houses that are surrounded on three sides by the premises of the Diesel Locomotive Workshop, and on one side by the Food Corporation of India’s godown. 4. It is the petitioner's case that ever since acquisition of land for the establishment of the Diesel Locomotive Workshop, Varanasi in the year 1956, the villagers have used the ten feet wide way provided by the Diesel Locomotive Workshop on the North side of the Workshop’s canteen until the year 2001, when the Diesel Locomotive Workshop started obstructing it. The obstruction was then opposed by the villagers. The Authority/Incharge of the Diesel Locomotive Workshop said that cattle stray out from the village into their workshop compelling them to block the way. As an outcome of the objection by the villagers, they attempted a closure of the way in the year 2001. The authority of the Diesel Locomotive Workshop put up a cow-catcher on both sides of the way, barricading it by wire until end of the village limits. This set up continued until the year 2007. In 2007, the authorities of the Diesel Locomotive Workshop again attempted to block the villagers’ way, compelling them to move an application before the General Manager of the Varanasi Locomotive Workshop/Diesel Locomotive Workshop, Varanasi. It is then said that the way was resumed and used by the villagers until the year 2022-23 when the Village Pradhan constructed a gate in the year 2025. The Diesel Locomotive Workshop’s authorities then got a deep pit dug up to block the way and preclude the villagers from using it. It is said that the villagers have no other suitable way to move out of the village onto the public road and this way cannot be obstructed. 5. In substance, therefore, what the petitioner claims is some kind of an easementary right. It may be an easement by prescription or an easement of necessity. Whatever it be, essentially the dispute involves a cause of action under the private law, for which a writ petition would not at all lie. There is no breach of a public duty or obligation of a public character owed by the respondents to the natives of the village, whose interest the petitioner purports to represent. 6. In view of all that have been said about, we are of opinion that this writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution. It goes without saying that the petitioner or any other natives of the village would be free to avail such remedy under the law, as advised. 7. Subject to the above remarks, this petition is held to be not maintainable and stands summarily dismissed. Order Date :- 21.3.2025 Deepak (J.J. MUNIR) JUDGE Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad