Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Ganga Ram v. U.P. Bhumi Sudhar Nigam & Others - WRIT - C No. 55032 of 2003 [2003] RD-AH 529 (16 December 2003)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).




Ganga Ram ----- Petitioner


Uttar Pradesh Bhumi Sudhar Nigam,

Lucknow & ors. -----        Respondents    


Hon'ble Dr.B.S.Chauhan,J.

Hon'ble R.C.Pandey, J.

(By Hon'ble Dr. B.S.Chauhan, J.)

This writ petition has been filed for seeking direction to the respondents to construct and complete the sanctioned link road from village Lakhi to Bela Yakoobpur Road via Madhav Nagar Himmatpur without any further deviation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent no. 1 had approved the construction of a link road as mentioned above. However, under the political pressure and for mala fide reasons the same is being deviated in order to benefit the other villagers and deprive the villagers of the petitioner's village. The road is not being constructed as approved initially for the reason that the respondent no. 2 arbitrarily, whimsically and under the political pressure and for mala fide reason is trying to change the route of link road in question, which is not permissible in law. Therefore, the petition should be allowed.

On the contrary, Shri S.K.Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 and the learned Standing Counsel  appearing for the respondent no. 3 have submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable as the State has not been impleaded as the party. Allegations of mala fide have been made against responent no. 2 though he is not impleaded by name. Therefore, the same cannot be read. Even if deviation of a proposed/approved road is required for some technical reason the Court cannot interfere with as such matters are to be left to the discretion of the statutory authority, and therefore, petition should be dismissed.

We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Petition is liable to be dismissed as the State is not impleaded as a party as mandatorily required. (Vide Ranjeet Mal Vs. General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi & anr., AIR 1977 SC 1701; and Chief Conservator of Forests, Government6 of A.P. Vs. Collector & ors, (2003) 3 SCC 472.

Allegation of mala fide cannot be agitated unless the person against whom mala fide is alleged is impleaded by name. (Vide J.M Banawalikar Vs. Municipal Corporation, Delhi & ors., AIR 1996 SC 326; State of Bihar & ors. Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 (Suppl) 1 SCC 122; I.K.Mishra Vs. Union of India & ors., (1997) 6 SCC 228; and  Federation of Officers Association Vs. Union of India & ors., 2003 AIR  SCW 1764

Allegations of mala fide made against respondent no. 2 are not worth reading as   he is not impleaded by  by name.

More so, the question as to whether the proposed/approved route is required to be changed or not is a matter of technical opinion. Such matters are bound to be left to the discretion of the authorities and Court cannot interfere with in such matters unless it is found to be arbitrary or for the reason of mala fide. As allegations of mala fide cannot be read for the aforesaid reasons we are not inclined to examine the issue. Relief of writ is  discretionary. It is not issued merely because if it is lawful to do so. Once a factual stand is taken, it cannot be changed on any legal proposition whatsoever nor it is permissible for the Court to examine the correctness of the findings of fact unless it is found to be perverse being based on no evidence or contrary to evidence, as the writ Court exercises its supervisory jurisdiction and not of appellate forum. The purpose of the writ Court is not only to protect a person from being subjected for violation of law but also to advance justice and not to thwart it. The Constitution does not place any fetter on the power of the extraordinary jurisdiction but leaves it to the discretion of the Court. However, being the power discretionary, the Court has to balance competing interest, keeping in mind that interest of justice and public interest can coalesce in certain circumstances. (Vide Champalal Binani Vs. Income Tax Commissioner, West Bengal, AIR  1970 SC 645; Ramniklal N. Bhutta Vs. State of Maharastra, (1997) 1 SCC 134; Chimajirao K. Shrike Vs. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2000 SC 2532; Ganpatrao Shama Prashant Raje Vs. Ganpat Rao, AIR  2000 SC 3094; LIC of India Vs. Asha Goyal, AIR  2001 SC 549; Roshandeen Vs. Preeti Lal, AIR  2002 SC 33; S.D.S. Shipping Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jay Container Services Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2003 (4) Supreme 44; and Chandra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. JT 2003 (6) SC 20).

For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in the matter.

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.