Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 456 (ALL)

BAKE SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS

WPIL/675/2026 · 2026-03-18

Kunal Ravi Singh, Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

Public Interest Litigationbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 675 of 2026 Court No. - 21 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents. 2. The instant Public Interest Litigation has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution, inter alia, seeking the following reliefs: "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2, to remove the illegal encroachment over Gata Nos.161/162/163 which is recorded as Road pursuant to the order dated 11.11.2025 passed by City Magistrate, District: Mau in proceeding u/s 3 of Public Premises Act in between State Vs. Arjun Sharma and other. (ii) issue any suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. (iii) award the cost of the writ petition (PIL) in favour of the petitioner." 3. At the outset, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the instant petition. He submits that the present Public Interest Litigation, which has been preferred for execution of the order dated 11.11.2025 passed by the City Magistrate/Prescribed Authority, Mau, cannot be entertained, as the same can be pursued in appropriate proceedings before the competent authority/forum for effective compliance in accordance with law. 4. In such a situation, we find that the instant proceeding amounts to a misuse of the process of law and, as such, we do not approve of the said practice. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to agitate the relief Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anil Kumar Chaudhary Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Bake Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) before the competent authority/forum in accordance with law. 5. With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition is dismissed. March 19, 2026 Mukesh Kr. WPIL No. 675 of 2026 2 (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- MUKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- MUKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad