Allahabad High Court slams lawyers for PIL against construction of advocates' chambers, parking

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that it had become a trend to file frivolous Public Interest Litigations (PILs) to create undue pressure on contractors and builders [Santosh Kumar Pandey vs State of UP and 2 Others]..The division bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar made the remark while censuring two lawyers who had challenged construction of a new building for the lawyers chambers and parking space coming up in the High Court premises.“Time and again in catena of judgments, Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court has deprecated this practice and directed for imposing exemplary cost on such kind of busybodies, who file PIL for extraneous considerations and ulterior motives. To curb such kind of frivolous petitions, it is mandatory to impose cost to discourage such kind of litigation. Such kind of vexatious proceedings should not be allowed to continue and if anybody engages in doing so, such activities have to curbed down. This is a perfect case where exemplary cost should be imposed on the petitioner,” the Court said..The PIL was filed by advocate Santosh Kumar Pandey who was represented by advocate Aditya Singh. It was argued before the Court that the excavation of the soil was being carried out by L&T company without taking permission from the Mining Department and without an Environment Clearance Certificate.However, the State challenged the maintainability of the PIL and also submitted that the project had been approved in 2021. The Court was also told that digging of soil was also taking place after approval. The State counsel also informed the Court that Singh, the counsel representing the present petitioner, himself had filed an identical petition in 2022 and the same was dismissed on the ground of credentials..Taking note of this, the Court found that the present PIL was filed in December 2022 just two months after the dismissal of the earlier PIL.“The earlier petition was filed by Sri Aditya Singh, who is the counsel in this petition. It is apparent that concealing the aforesaid fact, Sri Aditya Singh, Advocate has chose to file another petition with the same relief in the name of one, Santosh Kumar Pandey, Advocate and Sri Singh is now appearing as a counsel on behalf of the petitioner. It is pure concealment of fact and pure abuse of process of law,” said the Court..It added that Singh was expected to point out that he had earlier filed a similar PIL which was dismissed. The conduct of the petitioner is not above board and he has not come to this Court with clean hands, the Court said.“Apparently, the entire petition has been filed on the behest of somebody, just to stall the construction of Chamber-cum-parking for the lawyers,” the Court said.Accordingly, the Court refused to entertain the petition and dismissed it. Taking note of the lawyers’ conduct, the Court also imposed a cost ₹40,000 on the petitioner. However, the same was later waived off on a request made by Singh.“After passing this order, Sri Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is a young lawyer, having only two years of practice, and asked for mercy of this Court as the cost imposed upon him would cause irreparable loss and injury to his bright future. He assured the Court that in future he will not indulge in such kind of activity. Accordingly, we recall the cost imposed on the petitioner"..However, the Court has ordered that both Pandey and Singh shall not be allowed to get a chamber or even enter the new premises.“Besides this, the petitioner Santosh Kumar Pandey and Sri Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner shall not be allowed to get Chamber or enter the new premises as they themselves are opposing the construction of the building”..Advocates Aditya Singh and Rabindra Natha Ojha represented the petitioner.Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal and Additional Chief Standing Counsel AK Goyal represented the State.[Read Judgment]