Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 34758 (ALL)

NAYYAR ALAM v. STATE OF U.P. AND 19 OTHERS

WPIL/716/2025 · 2025-04-23

J J Munir

Public Interest Litigationbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:62846 Court No. - 49 Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 716 of 2025 Petitioner :- Nayyar Alam Respondent :- State of U.P. and others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhilasha, Mushir Khan Counsel for Respondent :- Ajitabh Choubey, B.B.Rai, Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C., Ganesh Shankar Dubey Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J. Heard Mr. Mushir Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Gautam Baghel, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 12 and 13, and Mr. Girijesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents. 2. The petitioner appears to be a man of shady antecedents. He has filed as many as 62 cases before this Court, out of which, 13 are Public Interest Litigations. Apart from that, he is a history-sheeter, as noticed in an order of a Division Bench of this Court in Nayyar Alam v. State of U.P. and others1, which the Police have refused to close. A copy of the order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur dated 09.04.2025 has been produced by Mr. Gautam Baghel, which shows that the petitioner has been placed under surveillance of the Police, being a history-sheeter. There are eight crimes admittedly registered against the petitioner, which have been disclosed in the supplementary affidavit filed today in Court. These crimes or the earlier Public Interest Litigations filed by the petitioner or the host of other petitions of various kinds that have been filed by the petitioner have not been disclosed in this petition. 3. The antecedents of the petitioner apparently show that he is a person who habitually litigates and has also earlier filed writ petitions on private causes of action against respondent Nos. 12 and 13. These are Writ 1 2025:AHC:58825-DB -2- Petition Nos. 42693 of 2023, where respondent No. 13 is respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 13 is party to an earlier Public Interest Litigation2 filed by the petitioner, bearing Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 1057 of 2024. This petition was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner pursue his alternative remedy. Again, in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 436 of 2023, respondent Nos. 12 and 11 were respondent Nos. 6 and 7. In Writ Petition Nos. 318 of 2023 and 382 of 2023, there are allegations against respondent Nos. 12 and 13, though they are not parties. 4. In the background of these facts, the assertions under Rule 3A of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, that the petitioner has made for himself, cannot be said to be true. The petitioner is decidedly not the holder of a genuine public cause that he wishes to espouse. His history, both in litigation before this Court and criminal history, would demonstrate that he is far from being a bona fide P.I.L. petitioner. 5. Reference in this connection may be made to a Bench decision of this Court in Kushwaha Mahasabha and another v. State of U.P. and others3 to which, I was party. In that case, the petitioner had withheld from the Court the fact that he was a government employee, working as an Assistant Teacher with the Basic Education Board and also that various criminal cases had been registered by and against him vis-à-vis the private respondents. In that background, it was remarked by the Court that since the petitioner had not disclosed the fact that he was an Assistant Teacher with the Basic Education Board and there were various cases pending between parties, he was not entitled to maintain the petition, which deserved to be dismissed with special costs. 2 ‘P.I.L.’ for short 3 2023 (2) ADJ 585 (DB) -3- 6. Here, there have been issues between the petitioner and respondent Nos. 12 and 13. Also, the concealment of the petitioner's own criminal history constitutes material concealment, which should have been very candidly disclosed. 7. In the totality of circumstances, I do not find this P.I.L. fit to be entertained. It is, accordingly, dismissed. 8. Let Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. - 607 of 2025 be de-tagged from the present petition and listed on its turn. Order Date :- April 24, 2025 I. Batabyal (J.J. MUNIR) JUDGE Digitally signed by :- ISHAN BATABYAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad