"Personal Interest Pleas Shouldn't Be Entertained": Allahabad High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking SIT Probe Against 2 Govt Officers

The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking a CBI probe and SIT inquiry against two government officers in the Public Works Department alleging that they had earned hundreds of crores by misuse of their position.

The bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Shree Prakash Singh observed that the petitioner had not disclosed his credentials and it appeared that he was acting at the instance of someone else.

Further, referring to the Apex Court's decision in the case of State of Uttranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010) 3 SCC 402, the Court observed that frivolous vexatious petitions and petitions which seek to serve personal interest should not be entertained, rather such petitions should be dismissed at the very threshold.

Essentially, one Ratnesh Kumar had moved the High Court seeking a direction to the UP govt and others to conduct an SIT inquiry/CBI probe into the alleged corruption committed by two individual officers in the Public Works Department, namely, Sri V.K.Singh and Sri S.P. Saxena.

At the outset, the Court observed that the writ petition had been filed without any concrete or reliable evidence in respect of the assertions made by the petitioner and that the allegations were made merely on the basis of some departmental correspondence made by the departmental officers, that too, way back in the year 2007-2008.

Further, the Court noted that the petitioner had utterly failed to establish his credentials which is a mandatory condition (for the person filing a PIL) as per Rule (3-A) in Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules.

"What all has been stated by the petitioner is that he is a "public spirited citizen" and is involved in "so many activities" for public good and want that the rule of law should prevail in governance. As to how the petitioner has described himself to be a public spirited citizen and as to in what particular activities has he been engaged for public good, has not been disclosed by the petitioner."

Lastly, noting that the petitioner had relied upon certain other departmental correspondence made by the officers of the department, however, no other credible document or evidence had been enclosed in the petition so as to arrive at any conclusive or concrete finding about the alleged irregularities/corruption, the Court dismissed the PIL plea.

Case title - Ratnesh Kumar v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. P.W.D. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 523 of 2022]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 423

Click Here To Read/Download Order