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


K. Mohan Shukla v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 51928 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 16785 (25 September 2006)


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).


Hon'ble S.Rafat Alam, J.

Hon'ble Sabhajeet Yadav,J.

By means of this petition as public interest litigation, issuance of a writ of Manmdamus is prayed restraining the respondent nol. 3, Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Construction Division, Civil Lines, Etawah from making any construction/obstruction upon the public road situated at Gata No. 291 and further to demolish the illegal construction already made upon the aforesaid plot.

We have heard Sri Arvind Kumar Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Nagar Palika- respondent no.4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that respondent no. 3 is illegally making the construction on public road raising obstruction in the thoroughfare. It is submitted that as per map of 1319 Fasli (1911-12) the aforesaid road is 40 feet wide connecting Mainpuri-Etawah road to the district hospital, Etawah. It is further submitted that despite representation made by the residents of the area, dated 24.1.2005 and 15.9.2005 through registered post, respondent no. 3 did not stop the construction work and the alleged construction is totally obstructing the pathway. However, this fact has been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the Nagar Palika. It is submitted that no construction on the public road as demarcated and shown in the map has been made, which could block or obstruct the thorough fare and only on one side of the road parking place has been made for the convenience of general public and it does not obstruct the traffic.

Admittedly, the road in question belongs to Nagar Palika.  Learned counsel appearing for the Nagar Palika on the basis of the inspection has denied any construction or encroachment over the public road and thus, the whole grievance of the petitioner appears to be misconceived. Besides that it has not been disclosed in the writ petition as to whether the Sawarna Morcha of which the petitioner claims to be Rashtriya Adhyaksha, is a registered body or not, nor its activities are disclosed in the writ petition and thus, having regard to the submissions made and looking to the facts of the case, we are of the view that this petition cannot be entertained as public interest litigation.

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Dated: 25.9.2006



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.