RAJNEESH KUMAR PANDEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed in public interest praying for the following reliefs:

(2.) Firstly, there is non-compliance of the provisions of Rule 1(3-A), Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 as the petitioner has not mentioned his credentials to comply with the aforesaid requirements. In the petition, it is only stated that the petitioner is a social worker. However, at the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner was fair enough stating that the petitioner is a political person, as he is an Ex-Member of Zila Panchayat, District-Kaushambi about ten years back. Even now, he is involved in political activities.

(3.) The issue sought to be raised, in our view, cannot be decided in the writ petition filed by the petitioner as he himself does not know anything about it being a political person. Apparently, the writ petition has been filed for some ulterior motive. The State must have conducted thorough research before taking decision to execute the project in question. No direction can be issued for modification of the route of "Ram Van Gaman Marg".