In PIL No.350 of 2022-ALL HC- PIL filed for oblique motive of gaining publicity must be dismissed at admission stage itself: Allahabad HC dismisses Petition seeking appointment of Committee to study structure found in Gyanvapi compound Justices Rajesh Singh Chauhan & Subhash Vidhyarthi [19-07-2022]

Read Order:  SUDHIR SINGH AND 6 OTHERS V. UNION OF BHARAT THRU ITS CABINET SECY. SOUTH BLOCK NEW DELHI AND 3 OTHERS 

LE Correspondent

Lucknow, July 22, 2022: The Allahabad High Court has recently opined that existence of a legally enforceable right and denial or violation thereof is a prerequisite for invoking the Writ jurisdiction of Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

A Division bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Subhash Vidhyarthi dismissed the  instant petition which  was   preferred in the style of Public Interest Litigation by seven persons praying that a direction be issued to appoint a Committee / Commission headed by a Judge of the High Court or Supreme Court to study the nature of structure found in the GyanVapi Campus to ascertain as to whether it is Shivling, as being claimed by the Hindus or it is a fountain as being claimed by few of the Muslims. 

However, the structures existing in Gyanvapi compound at Varanasi were already the subject matter of dispute in various civil suits. A commission for local inspection was already issued and it was carried out in Civil Suit of 2021 under orders passed by the Civil Judge.

 Having regard to the complexity of the issues involved, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had directed that the aforesaid Civil Suit shall be transferred to the Court of the District Judge, Varanasi, for trial and all interlocutory and ancillary proceedings in the suit had also been directed to be decided by the District Judge, Varanasi. The Special Leave Petition was still pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Bearing in mind the aforesaid facts, this Court opined that it was not proper on the part of the petitioners to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court by filing a Public Interest Litigation seeking a relief regarding the subject matter, which was already the subject matter of the pending suits as also of the aforesaid Special Leave Petition.

However, since the Chief Standing Counsel had raised a preliminary objection against maintainability of the Writ Petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, thus this Court deemed it appropriate to deal with the same.  In view of the same, the Court took into consideration Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.  Further reliance was placed on a celebrated judgment in Nasiruddin vs State Transport Appellate Tribunal. 

By placing its reliance on the same, the Court noted that an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will lie at Lucknow if the petitioners allege that the whole of the cause of action or a part thereof arose within the areas of Oudh. Another judgment of the Apex Court in U.P. Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad, Lucknow Vs. State of U.P. and others was also referred to. 

In light of the aforesaid cited precedents, this Court concluded the matter by observing that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition filed at Lucknow regarding the subject matter situation at Varanasi. In view of these observations, the instant petition was dismissed.