ALEEMUDDIN vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

1

  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.11703 OF 2018 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.4970 OF 2018)

                      Versus

J U D G M E N T   DR.   DHANANJAYA     Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. Leave granted. 1. A petition was filed purportedly in public interest before the   Allahabad   High   Court   by   the   fifth   respondent.     In   his petition, the fifth respondent sought a direction to the State Government   to   establish   a   new   tehsil   building   for   Tehsil Hasanpur at Village Karanpur Mafi in the District of Amroha in Uttar Pradesh.  The relief which he sought was in the following terms : “(i)   Issue   a   writ,   order   or   direction   in   the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to   establish   new   building   of   Tehsil   Hasanpur District Amroha at Village Karanpur Mafi, District Amroha; Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date: 2018.12.06 13:37:02 IST Reason: (ii)     Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to   decide   the   representation   of   the   petitioner 2 dated 16.12.2015; within the stipulated period.” 2. The   Division   Bench   was   apprised   of   the   fact   that   the Government   had   granted   its   financial   sanction   for   the construction of a new Tehsil office.  Accordingly, in terms of the   submission   made   by   the   fifth   respondent,   the   High   Court disposed  of the petition  by directing  the  State to  take all necessary steps for the construction of a new Tehsil office for Hasanpur, District Amroha at Village Karanpur Mafi. 1 3. The   appellant   filed   a   recall   application   which   was rejected   by   the   impugned   order   dated   13   October   2017. Challenging the order of the High Court declining to recall its previous order, these proceedings have been instituted. 4. The  Special  Leave  Petition   discloses   that  the  Tehsil  of Hasanpur is situated in District Amroha in the State of Uttar Pradesh.     The   proposal   for   the   reconstruction   of   the   Tehsil building of Tehsil Hasanpur was sanctioned.  The appellant has averred that the PIL which was filed by the fifth respondent before the Allahabad High Court for getting the Tehsil building shifted   to   a   new   place,   namely,     Gata   No.195   situated   at Village Karanpur Mafi was to subserve his   personal interest. It   has   been   stated   that,   Gata   No.196   situated   at   Village Karanpur Mafi belongs to the family of the fifth respondent, the original petitioner before the High Court.  Hence he had a vested interest in seeking a direction of this nature before 1 Numbered as Civil Miscellaneous Application No.259865 of 2017 3 the High Court so that the value of his land would increase with a new tehsil building coming up in close proximity. 5. On 23 February 2018, notice was issued in these proceedings and an order of status quo was passed. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh in which it has been submitted thus : “The answering respondent respectfully submits that for reconstruction of building of tehsil Hasanpur vide order dated 18.09.2002 issued by commissioner division   Moradabad   the   land   Gata   No.195/01M   area 0.953   hectare   situated   in   village   Karanpur   Mafi Tehsil   Hasanpur   was   acquired   by   the   State Government.   The said land was registered as non productive land in the revenue records. 2. The   answering   respondent   respectfully   submits that   on   14.04.2016   it   was   declared   by   the   State Government that instead of transferring the Tehsil Building   to   any   other   place   it   shall   be reconstructed   in   Tehsil   Hasanpur   at   the   place   of old   Tehsil   building   by   demolishing   the   old building. 3. The   answering   respondent   respectfully   submits that during this period the Hon’ble High Court of judicature   at   Allahabad   passed   an   order   dated 06.01.2017   in   public   interest   litigation   Writ No.157   of   2017   whereby   the   Hon’ble   High   Court directed to respondent No.2 to take all necessary steps   for   construction   of   new   Tehsil   office Hasanpur District Amroha at Village Karanpur Mafi District Amroha. 4. The   answering   respondent   respectfully   submits that   in   compliance   of   the   order   dated   06.01.2017 passed by the Hon’ble High Court Allahabad the then District Magistrate, Amroha vide its letter dated 06.03.2017   recommended   the   construction   of   new tehsil office at gram Karanpur Mafi keeping in view the larger public interest.” 7. The submission of the State makes it patently clear that the   State   Government   had   taken   a   decision   that   instead   of transferring the Tehsil building to a new location, it should 4 be reconstructed at the place of the old Tehsil building.  The implementation  of  this  administrative  decision  was  pre­empted by the directions which were issued in the PIL filed by the fifth respondent. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fifth respondent has not disputed the factual position that the fifth respondent and/or the members of his family own a land adjacent to the place   where   the   shifting   of   the   Tehsil   building   was   sought before the High Court. That being the position, we are of the view that the petition which was filed in the High Court by the fifth respondent was not a genuine petition in public interest but was intended to subserve the personal interest of the fifth respondent. 9. Where   a   Tehsil   building   should   be   constructed   is   not   a matter for the High court to determine in the exercise of its writ   jurisdiction   under   Article   226     of   the   Constitution   of India.     These   are   essentially   administrative   matters   and   a decision has to be taken by the executive.   This is hence an illustration of how a public interest litigation (PIL) has been utilised to subserve a personal interest.  The High Courts must remain   vigilant   to   the   attempts   to   misuse   PILs   to   subserve extraneous and motivated purposes.  Such efforts must be dealt with firmly.   High pre­rogative writs cannot be utilised for such ends. 10. The   High   Court   was   manifestly   in   error   in   its   original 5 order dated 6 January 2017 in directing the State to construct a new Tehsil office for Hasanpur at a particular place.   This is a matter which should have been left to the State Government to take an appropriate decision. 11. Accordingly,   we   allow   the   appeal   and   set   aside   the directions   contained   in   the   order   of   the   High   Court   dated 06   January,   2017.     We   also   dispose   of   the   petition   by clarifying  that it  would  be open  to the State  Government  to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law. The Civil Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.  No costs.                          .............................J.                           (DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD)   .............................J.                              ( M.R. SHAH ) New Delhi, Dated: NOVEMBER 30, 2018. 6 ITEM NO.56 COURT NO.13 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).4970/2018 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13-10- 2017 in CMRA No. 259865/2017 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad) ALEEMUDDIN Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.24253/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 30-11-2018 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH For Petitioner(s) Mr. Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, AOR Mr. Wasim Ahmad, Adv. Ms. Aditi Gupta, Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Charu Singhal, Adv. Ms. Stuti Chopra, Adv. Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, AOR Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted. The Civil Appeal is disposed of in terms of the Signed Reportable Judgment. No costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (GEETA AHUJA) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER ( The Reportable Judgment is placed on the file)