Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed with Rs 5,000 cost a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) pertaining to permission to set up a sugarcane juice dispensing unit at the Kashi Vishwanath Dham premises so as to facilitate the devotees to offer prayer/rudrabhishek using sugarcane juice at nominal prices.

The bench of Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava held that the cause expaused in the PIL plea was not public at all but private.

"The plea seeks to garner benefit for the petitioners' firm which is engaged in the business of extraction of sugarcane juice," observed the court. 

The PIL was moved essentially seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus commanding the Respondent Authorities to direct the respondents to decide the pending representations of the petitioners dated July 8 & 9, 2023. 

The representation dated July 8, 2023 was addressed to the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Lucknow and essentially seeks permission to set up a sugarcane juice dispensing unit at the temple. 

The representations dated July 9, 2023 was addressed to the District Magistrate, Varanasi with more or less identical relief.

The PIL proceeded on the belief that sugarcane juice offered to the Jyotir Lingam inside the Kashi Vishwanath Temple would benefit the public at large and obliviate poverty. The sugarcane juice so offered to the Jyotir Lingam would be collected and used for preparing Gur products and can also be offered as fodder for cattle.

The local farmers who grow sugarcane shall also benefit from such activity, the PIL plea claimed. 

However, the high court held the plea an attempt to abuse Public Interest Litigation. Court referred to the directions issued by the Apex Court in State of Uttranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010) to preserve the purity and sanctity of the Public Interest Litigation.

In view of the same, the high court, being not satisfied by the cause expaused, at the outset, intended to dismiss the petition imposing a cost of Rs.1 Lac on the petitioners, however, when the petitioner's counsel sought liberty to withdraw the petition without imposition of any cost, court reduced the same. 

While "hoping that the petitioners would mend their ways and would not institute such frivolous petition in future", court directed the petitioner to deposit Rs 5000 with the Registry of the High Court within three weeks from the date of the order. 

"...failing which the same shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue," ordered the court. 

Case Title: Mahadev Enterprises Firm And 2 Others v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others