RAJPATI PATEL Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This public interest litigation has been preferred for the following relief:-

(2.) If a Pradhan commits financial irregularity or misconduct, there is a statutory rule under the "U.P. PANCHAYAT RAJ (REMOVAL OF PRADHANS, UP PRADHANS AND MEMBERS) ENQUIRY RULES, 1997". The petitioner without taking recourse to remedy available to him has filed this PIL. We do not find the issue raised in this PIL of great public importance. We are of the view that such type of PIL should be discouraged. Recently, the Supreme Court has expressed its anguish in Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India and another, 2018 6 SCC 72. The court has held that the High Court should not entertain the public interest litigation which does not have any larger public interest. The relevant part of the judgment of Supreme Court is extracted below:-

(3.) In the above case, the Supreme Court referred and followed the principle laid down by it in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others, 2010 3 SCC 402, wherein the Court has revisited the entire law on public interest litigation. The Court has traced its origin in U.S. In 1976, Ford Foundation set up the Council for Public Interest Law. The Council in its Report defined the "Public Interest Litigation" in the following terms:-