Litigation No Sport For Mischievous, Courts Not Play Field For Interlopers: Allahabad High Court Penalizes Advocate, Asks To Do Probono Cases

The Allahabad High Court while penalizing a "busybody" Lawyer, has observed that litigation cannot be a sport for the mischievous and courts are not the play field for interlopers.

The Court was considering a Writ Petition seeking conduct of a Departmental Enquiry against the Assistant Engineer of the Jal Nigam.

The Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot observed, "The law laid down by the Constitutional Courts does not permit initiation of adversarial litigation in service matters at the instance of a stranger or a busybody. The petitioner was required to satisfy that he is an aggrieved party. The nature of legal rights sought to be enforced do not bring the petitioner in the definition of a person aggrieved. The petitioner does not have the locus standi to maintain the writ petition. Further the petitioner cannot canvass any public interest in this writ petition, in light of the restrictions imposed by judicial authorities discussed earlier....Litigation cannot be a sport for the mischievous and courts are not the play field for interlopers."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Avinash Tiwari, while the Respondent was represented by the C.S.C.

The Court observed that Employees of the Jal Nigam are governed and regulated by the service rules of the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam and the action against the employees has to be taken by the disciplinary authority as per law and the Petitioner is neither an employee of the Jal Nigam, nor the disciplinary authority. It also noted that the Petitioner doesn't figure anywhere in the statutory lineup or official hierarchy of authorities charged with the duties of making the appointments or examining of their validity thereof.

"The petitioner is a lawyer who has worked for the welfare of the society. However, apart from this bald averment no material is in the record to establish the credentials of the petitioner. The petitioner has prayed for a departmental enquiry against the respondent no. 3 clearly with a view to harass him. It is evident that the aforesaid averments regarding his credentials are not liable to be taken on their face value and are accordingly rejected", the Court observed.

Noting that the Petitioner has not established his locus standi to recommend a departmental enquiry against the Respondent No. 3 who is working as an Assistant Engineer, the Court observed, "Entertaining complaints from the outsiders who are busybodies and interlopers will have far reaching consequences on the functioning of government. Such action will adversely impact the morale of the government servants and will be detrimental to the efficiency of the Government. Persons who set up complaints with malafide motives of harassing and blackmailing government servant have to be deterred and the Government employees should be safeguarded. Manner of discharge of duties by public servants are wholly beyond the scope of the rights of such complainants and entirely in the prerogative of the State Government."

The Court further noted that it is settled law that public interest litigation is not maintainable in service matter and it would be apposite to fortify the narrative with cases in point and referred to the Supreme Court's rulings in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal and Duryodhan Sahu (Dr.) v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra.

Stressing that litigation cannot be a sport for the mischievous and courts are not the play field for interlopers, it mentioned that the Petitioner is a lawyer and therefore there is a special responsibility cast on members of the Bar to be dutiful citizens and not exploit their privileges of being a lawyer by initiating such malafide litigation.

The Petition was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Sultan Choudhary vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [2025:AHC:132348]

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate Avinash Tiwari, Advocate Subedar Mishra

Respondent- C.S.C., Advocate Suresh Singh, Advocate Vimlesh Kumar Rai

Click here to read/ download Order