The case of Santosh Kumar Pandey vs. State of U.P. (PIL No. 2510 of 2022) arose from a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Santosh Kumar Pandey, a practicing advocate, against the State of Uttar Pradesh and others. The petitioner sought several directions from the court, primarily aimed at stopping the construction of new lawyer chambers and parking facilities within the Allahabad High Court premises. The construction project, executed by L&T Construction, was challenged on the grounds of alleged non-compliance with environmental and mining regulations.
Legal Issues Involved:
The petitioner contended that the construction work was being carried out without proper environmental clearance and mining permits, arguing that these were mandatory for the projectโs initiation. The petition relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Tapas Guha & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., emphasizing the need for compliance with environmental laws before starting any major construction project.
On the other hand, the State, represented by Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal and Additional Chief Standing Counsel A.K. Goyal, argued that the PIL was not maintainable. They referred to the Supreme Court’s guidelines in State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors. (2010) 3 SCC 402, which emphasize the need for courts to verify the bona fides of a PIL before entertaining it. The State also submitted that all necessary clearances, including environmental and mining approvals, had been obtained before the project commenced.
Courtโs Decision:
The Bench, comprising Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar, after hearing both parties, dismissed the PIL, citing it as frivolous and an abuse of the judicial process. The court observed that the petitioner had concealed material facts, particularly the dismissal of a similar PIL (No. 830 of 2022) filed by the same counsel, Aditya Singh, just two months prior.
The court criticized the trend of filing baseless PILs to obstruct projects for extraneous reasons. It imposed a cost of โน40,000 on the petitioner, to be deposited in the Bar Association for the welfare of advocates. The court further barred the petitioner and his counsel from accessing or benefiting from the new lawyer chambers they sought to obstruct.
Important Observations:
In its judgment, the court stated:
“Time and again, in a catena of judgments, the Honโble Supreme Court and this Court have deprecated the practice of filing frivolous PILs just to put undue pressure on contractors/builders. To curb such vexatious proceedings, it is mandatory to impose costs to discourage such litigation.”
However, considering the counsel’s plea of being a young lawyer with only two years of practice, the court showed leniency and recalled the cost imposed, while issuing a stern warning against future misconduct.
Also Read
Case Details:
– Case Title: Santosh Kumar Pandey vs. State of U.P. & Others
– Case Number: PIL No. 2510 of 2022
– Bench: Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar
– Counsel for Petitioner: Aditya Singh, Rabindra Nath Ojha
– Counsel for Respondent: Manish Goyal (Additional Advocate General), A.K. Goyal (Additional Chief Standing Counsel)
