MANISH KUMAR MISHRA v. UNION OF INDIA AND 7 OTHERS
WPIL/903/2025 · 2025-05-13
Arun Bhansali, Kshitij Shailendra
Public Interest Litigationbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 45847 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 45847 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:79435-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 903 of 2025 Petitioner :- Manish Kumar Mishra Respondent :- Union of India and 7 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Mishra, Surendra Kumar Chaubey Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Rajiv Singh (S.C.), R.K. Ojha (Sr. Adv.) with Shivendu Ojha, Hridai Narain Pandey, Prem Narayan Rai Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.
1. This petition, purportedly in public interest, has been filed by the petitioner, inter alia, questioning the validity of order dated 11.11.2024, passed by the Chief Revenue Officer, Gorakhpur and seeking a direction to respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 Commissioner, Gorakhpur, District Magistrate, Gorakhpur and Chief Revenue Officer Gorakhpur respectively to conclude the inquiry and take legal recourse against the academic institutions running contrary to the bye-laws within a stipulated period. Petitioner has also impleaded Committee of Management, J.P. Sunrise School as respondent No. 8. 2. While disclosing the credentials, the petitioner has indicated as under :
"6. That factual depicts in narrow compass is this that the petitioner is resident of Gorakhpur City and is a Architect, therefore he has wide knowledge about the Gorakhpur City and occasionally he has got opportunity to visit the Senior Secondary Schools running in district Gorakhpur having affiliation with the respondent Central Board of Secondary Education and found that there are various schools in district Gorakhpur having affiliation with Central Board of Secondary Education running without having any play grounds and various other facilities including suitable building sufficient surrounding boundary with having no proper exit, though for safe exit of students and therefore he obtained the Lodge of affiliation specific requirement of land in respect of building etc. for running the schools and got that there are various schools in district Gorakhpur are running having without sufficient land, building and even after that they have got the affiliation from Central Board of Secondary Education. 7.
That the petitioner has no individual interest and has no personal interest in the matter for which he relating the grievances by means of this P.I.L. petition but being a citizen of same vicinity is perusing the problems of public at large i.e. students and guardians who were suffering from proper facility to be given to their children for its safety and security as well as healthy environment during academic hours, therefore the petitioner is relegating the grievances of pupils and their guardians for taking and providing the education to their children in proper good and healthy environment and since the academic institutions running under the affiliation of District Gorakhpur having lacks of various facilities, therefore the petitioner has had duty and obligation to have exemplary vigilance over the academic duty in District Gorakhpur relegating the grievance of children at large by means of present Public Interest Litigation. 8. That the petitioner also made declaration that he has no individual and personal interest and the result of litigation of present P.I.L. Writ Petition will not lead to any undue gain to the petitioner himself or any one associated with him or any undue loss to any person or body of person or the State."
3. A miscellaneous application has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 8, inter alia, questioning the credentials of the petitioner. Submissions have been made that petitioner, as a trustee of a Trust, is running three educational institutions, being Purvanchal Public School, Purvanchal Institute of Architecture and Design and Janki Degree College and that the petition has been filed without disclosing the said connection and essentially is an outcome of the rivalry between the educational institutions, which are catering to the students of the same vicinity. 4. No response to the said allegations made in the application has been given. 5. Counsel for the petitioner, when confronted with the allegations made in the application, indicated that the fact has been disclosed in para 27 of the writ petition. Para 27 of the writ petition reads as under :
"27.
That it is admitted fact averted in the impleadment application that the petitioner is a member of trust known as Janki Trust and aforesaid trust is also running a Purvanchal Public School in Manas Vihar Colony, Padari Bazar, Gorakhpur. A true copy of the trust deed is being filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE NO. 14 to this writ petition."
6. A perusal of the above paragraph would reveal that the said paragraph, inter alia, pertains to some impleadment application filed in PIL No. 1976 of 2024 by respondent No. 8 making similar allegations, which was later on withdrawn. However, while indicating the credentials in para 6, 7 and 8 of the writ petition, a high situs has been sought to be projected by the petitioner as a public interest litigant by claiming himself as an Architect and visiting schools without disclosing the status as a trustee of the Trust running the educational institutions, which, it is claimed by respondent No. 8, are in competition with the respondent No. 8- School/institution. 7. The filing of the public interest litigations, seeking to wreak personal vengeance against the respondent, when the petitioner feels that otherwise the petitioner would have no locus standi to seek any relief against the respondent and suppressing material
facts including own credentials, cannot be countenanced.
8. The action of such litigants, in fact, results in harm to genuine public interest litigations as the said genuine public interest litigations are then always being looked at by jaundiced eye. Such a situation cannot be permitted.
9. Consequently, the petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 25,000/-.
10. The cost shall be deposited by the petitioner with the Legal Services Authority of this Court within a period of four weeks. On failure to deposit the said cost, appropriate action shall be initiated against the petitioner.
Order Date :- 14.5.2025 P.Sri./Mukesh Pal (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- PUNEET SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad