Allahabad high court rejects PIL over illegal construction in Ghaziabad

The plea was filed by one Bhanu Pandey, who, according to the records specified in the court order, indicated him to be a resident of Lucknow but claimed to be a resident of Hamirpur district, UP

Ghaziabad: The Allahabad high court (HC) has dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL), filed by a resident of Lucknow to seek demolition of a construction in Ghaziabad, observing the plea as malafide on the part of the petitioner who has no remote connection and filed the petition at the behest of someone else.

The court also said that a query was put to the counsel for the petitioner as to how the petitioner, a resident of Lucknow, is aggrieved by the construction standing at Ghaziabad. (HT Archive)

A bench headed by chief justice Arun Bhansali heard the matter on November 4 and dismissed the PIL stating, “The attempt made in filing the petition in the name of public interest at the behest of someone else and without there being any remote connection clearly reflects the mala fides on the part of the petitioner, which cannot be permitted.”

The plea was filed by one Bhanu Pandey, who, according to the records specified in the court order, indicated him to be a resident of Lucknow but claimed to be a resident of Hamirpur district, Uttar Pradesh.

The court also said that a query was put to the counsel for the petitioner as to how the petitioner, a resident of Lucknow, is aggrieved by the construction standing at Ghaziabad. In response, it was submitted that a petition, in the public interest, can be filed by a resident of any part of the country.

“Besides the fact that the petitioner has failed to indicate his credentials, the petition nowhere indicates as to in what manner the petitioner could get access to the notices issued to respondent no. 5 by the development authority while being a resident of Lucknow. The petition nowhere indicates the status of the petitioner, whereby he would be having access to the documents in question,” the court order further stated.

The petition is, therefore, dismissed, the court said in its final order while stating that the occupation of the petitioner indicated in the affidavit in support of the position was a “social worker”, which at the age of 46 years cannot make available livelihood to the petitioner.