Raj Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Court No. - 51 Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 550 of 2023 Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Prasad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Azad Rai Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

1.Heard Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. O.P. Sharma, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Azad Rai, learned counsel for respondent No.7/Gaon Sabha.

2.The instant P.I.L. has been filed for the following relief: "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondents to construct the Panchayat Bhawan in petitioner's village in the middle of the village in Arazi No.49 having area 0.046 hectare, which is navin parti, for looking into the convenience of the general public and members of the panchayat to attend the meeting and other government organized program on the Panchayat Bhawan.

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondents to hear and decide the representation of the petitioner expeditiously within short span of time."

¶3In compliance of the order date 22.08.2023, instruction dated 11.09.2023 has been filed by the learned Standing Counsel which is already on record.

¶4Petitioner has filed reply on 09.10.2023 to the instruction dated 11.09.2023.

¶5Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proposal for construction of Panchayat Bhawan in plot no.49 is not in the interest of the villagers of the village. He further submitted that although the plot No.49 is recorded as Navin Parti, but the same is situated at the one side of the village, as such the same will not be convenient for the villagers of the village. He further submitted that any other place be selected for construction of the Panchayat Bhawan so that same may be convenient for all the villagers of the village.

¶6Instruction sent by Sub Divisional Officer, Koraon, Prayagraj will be relevant, which is as under: "

मम०उचचनयमयमलयइलमहमबमदममययजजतजनहहतयमहचकमससखयम

-550/2023

रमम

ककममरहमशबनममउतरपददशसरकमरवअनयममपमररतआददशहदनमसक

22.08.2023

कद

कमममवमसहछतइनसटटकशनन-

शशरमजककममरहमशमपकतहवनधयवमजसनशपसमदहन०गममभवमनशपकर,

तहसशलकयरमसवजनपद

पयमगरमजदमरमगममभवमनशपकरककगमटमससखयम49

रकबम0.0460

हद०परशशसनतयषककममर

गममपधमनदमरमहनहमरतपसचमयतभवनकयगमसवकदमधयबनमयदजमनदकदसमबनधमममम०उचच

नयमयमलयममयमहचकमययजजतहकयमगयमथम,

जजसमममम०उचचनयमयमलयदमरमहदनमसक

22.08.2023

कयहनमनआददशपमररतहकयदगयदहहन-1- Mr. Azad Rai, learned counsel for the respondent Gaon Sabha is present. 2-Mr. Anand Bhaskar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel prays for further time to obtain instruction in the matter. 3-Two weeks' and no more time is granted to State as well as Gaon Sabha to obtain instruction in the matter.

मम०उचचनयमयमलयइलमहमबमदममययजजतजनहहतयमहचकमससखयम-550/2023

रमजककममर

हमशबनममउतरपददशसरकमरवअनयममपमररतआददशहदनमसक22.08.2023 कद

अनकपमलनममशशआननदभमसकरशशवमसतवमम०सथमयशअजधवकम,

मम०उचचनयमयमलय

इलमहमबमदकदफहकसहदनमसक23.08.2023

कदकमममजजलमजधकमरशमहयदय,

पयमगरमजकद

कमयमरलयपतमसक-1411/एस०टश०-2023

हदनमसक24 अगसत, 2023

दमरममम०उचच

नयमयमलयममइनसटटकशनदमजखलकरमयदजमनदकदहनदरशहदयदगयदहह।

उककदकमममसमदरअवगतकरमनमहहहकतहसशलदमरकयरमसवसदजजचकरमयशगयश।

तहसशलदमरकयरमसवककआखयमहदनमसक08.09.2023

ममउहलजखतहकयमगयमहहहकगमम

भवमनशपकरपरगनमखहरमगढ,

तहसशरकयरमसवजनपदपयमगरमजककवतरममनगमटमससखयम49

रकबम0.0460

हद०खततनशखमतमससखयम269

नवशनपरतशकदखमतदममदजरहह,

जयमतकदपर

खमलशहहतथमगममपसचमयतभवमनशपकरककपसचमयतभवनवतरममनगमटमससखयम305

खरकबम

0.0460

हद०नवशनपरतशममहनममरणपपवरगममपधमनदमरमबनवमयमजमचकमहह, हकनतक दरवमजम,

जखडककवदशवमलपलमसटरवपमहटसगनहहहकयमगयमहह।अवलयकनमथरतहसशलदमर

कयरमसवककआखयमहदनमसक08.09.2023

अवलयकनमथरससलगहह।

अतनउपरयकमनकसमरवमसहछतइनसटटकशनमयससलगककसहहतसमदरसदवमममपसतकतहह। ह०अ० ह०अ० तहसशलदमर,

उपजजलमजधकमरश, कयरमसव-

पयमगरमज।कयरमसव-पयमगरमज।"

¶7The perusal of the instruction demonstrate that plot No.49 is recorded as Navin Parti and the same is vacant on spot. It is also mentioned in the instruction that construction has already been made and only finishing work is to be conduced, as such prayer made in the instant P.I.L. cannot be granted to the petitioner.

¶8The perusal of the construction does not require any interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of P.I.L. at the instance of petitioner. Accordingly, the P.I.L. is dismissed. Order Date :- 17.10.2023 PS* High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad