Chief Justice's Court

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 532 of

2020

Petitioner :- In-Re Banners Placed On Road Side In The City

Of Lucknow
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Suo Moto
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Chief Justice

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General

submits that in this matter learned Advocate General is to
appear on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh. He was to arrive
the Court at 10.00 am but due to some issues relating to weather
he failed to attend the Court. A request is made to take up the
matter at 3.00 pm.

Let this petition be taken up at 3.00 pm today itself.

3:00 pm

Heard learned Advocate General on behalf of the state-

respondents.

Put up tomorrow i.e. 9th March, 2020 at 2.00 pm for

pronouncement of order.

Order Date :- 8.3.2020

Bhaskar

(Ramesh Sinha, J.) (Govind Mathur, C.J.)

 -1-

AFR

Chief Justice's Court

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 532 of 2020

Petitioner :- In-Re Banners Placed On Road Side In The City Of

Lucknow
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Suo Moto
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Chief Justice

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

Heard Sri Raghvendra Singh, learned Advocate General assisted by

Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General, Sri Shashank
Shekhar Singh, Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Smt. Archana
Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-
respondents.
Privacy is a fundamental human right recognized in the United
Nations Declaration of Human Rights, the international convenant on
civil and political rights and many other international and regional
treaties. The privacy underpins human dignity and key values of a
democracy. Nearly every country in the world recognizes a right of
privacy explicitly in their constitution. In our country, where privacy is
not explicitly recognized as fundamental right in the constitution, the
Courts have found such right protected as an intrinsic part of life and
personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This
fundamental right provides lungs to the edifice of our entire constitutional
system. A slightest injury to it is impermissible as that may be fatal for our
values designed and depicted in the preamble of the constitution.
In this public interest writ proceedings, undertaken by the Court at
its own, the simple question is the legitimacy of the display of
photographs, name and address of certain persons by the district
administration and police administration of the city of Lucknow through
 -2-

banners. The banners came up at a major road side with personal details
of more than 50 persons those accused of vandalism during protest in the
month of December, 2019. The poster is seeking compensation from the
accused persons and further to confiscate their property, if they failed to
pay compensation.
The installation of banners was reported in several newspapers,
television and internet channels on 6th and 7th of March, 2020. Noticing
injury to the right of privacy, the Chief Justice of this Court directed the
Registry to register a petition for writ in public interest and list that before
the Bench nominated. By an advance notice, the Commissioner of Police,
Lucknow and District Magistrate, Lucknow were called upon to explain
the provisions under which the banners were placed on road side. An
explanation was also sought about the provisions relating to placement of
any banner on road side that causes interference in movement of traffic in
crowded areas. Accordingly, the Commissioner of Police and District
Magistrate, Lucknow are before us through the Advocate General of the
State.
Learned Advocate General while accepting absence of any statute
permitting executive authorities to put such banners, opposed the petition
with all vehemence with following submissions:-
(i) The Court erred in invoking public interest jurisdiction in the
instant matter, that being available to under privileged section of the
society only. The persons whose personal details are given in the banners
are capable enough to agitate their grievance, if any, at their own.
(ii) The cause in the instant matter, if any, that arose at Lucknow,
therefore, the petition at Allahabad lacks territorial jurisdiction.
(iii) The cognizance of any issue that is to be adjudicated in public
interest litigation jurisdiction could have been taken by a Division Bench
and not by a single Bench as taken in the instant matter.
(iv) The object of displaying personal details of the individuals is to
deter the mischief mongers from causing damage to public and private
 -3-

property. Such bonafide action taken by the State must not be interfered
by the Court in its public interest litigation jurisdiction.

To substantiate the first submission, learned Advocate General

heavily relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of
Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others, 2010 (3) SCC 402
laying down guidelines for Courts to streamline PIL jurisdiction. The
Apex Court while doing so issued following directions:-

“(1) The courts must encourage genuine and bona fide

PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for
extraneous considerations.

(2) Instead of every individual judge devising his own

procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would
be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules
for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed
with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High
Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the
rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High
Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the Rules prepared by
the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this court
immediately thereafter.

(3) The courts should prima facie verify the credentials of

the petitioner before entertaining a P.I.L.

(4) The court should be prima facie satisfied regarding

the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining
a PIL.

(5) The court should be fully satisfied that substantial

public interest is involved before entertaining the petition.

(6) The court should ensure that the petition which

involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be
given priority over other petitions.

(7) The courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure

 -4-

that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or

public injury. The court should also ensure that there is no
personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the
public interest litigation. (8) The court should also ensure that
the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior
motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by
adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and
the petitions filed for extraneous considerations.”

Learned Advocate General while referring para 32, 34, 35 and 36 of

the judgment aforesaid emphasized that the public interest litigation
jurisdiction is evolved by the Courts to get access to justice to a large
section of society that is otherwise not getting any benefit from judicial
system.

So far as this argument is concerned, suffice to state that the most of

the directions issued under para 181 of the judgment aforesaid would have
no application in the instant matter being arising out of a suo motu action
taken by the Court. However, it would be appropriate to state that the
Court while calling upon the respondents duly applied its mind to ensure
that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury.
In our constitutional scheme executive, legislature and judiciary are given
distinct and separate powers and generally each branch is not allowed to
encroach the powers of other. All the three wings of governance being
face of the State, check and balance each other. The judiciary usually
takes action once a case or cause is brought before it by a party and that is
mostly in adverse litigation. But, where there is gross negligence on part
of public authorities and government, where the law is disobeyed and the
public is put to suffering and where the precious values of the constitution
are subjected to injuries, a constitutional court can very well take notice of
that at its own. The Court in such matters is not required to wait
necessarily for a person to come before it to ring the bell of justice. The
Courts are meant to impart justice and no court can shut its eyes if a
public unjust is happening just before it. The concept of “standing” has
 -5-

acquired a new shape in our justice delivery system. A well meaning

citizen or body certainly possess a locus to stand before the Court of law
for a well meaning cause. In the case in hand, a valid apprehension of
causing serious injury to the rights protected under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India exists which demands adequate treatment by the
Court at its own. The economic status of the persons directly affected in
such matters is not material. The prime consideration before the Court is
to prevent the assault on fundamental rights, especially the rights
protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. As already stated,
in the instant matter the act of the district and police administration of
Lucknow is alleged to be in conflict with the right of life and liberty.
Hence, the suo motu action by the Court is justified.

The second objection raised by learned Advocate General is that the

entire cause of action in the instant matter arose at Lucknow, hence, this
Court at Allahabad lacks territorial jurisdiction. Cause of action means the
whole of the material facts that is necessary for a plaintiff to allege and
prove. The cause of action consists of a bundle of facts that gives cause to
enforce the legal injury for redress in a a Court of law.

In the present case, the cause is not about personal injury caused to
the persons whose personal details are given in the banner but the injury
caused to the precious constitutional value and its shameless depiction by
the administration. The cause as such is undemocratic functioning of
government agencies which are supposed to treat all members of public
with respect and courtesy and at all time should behave in manner that
upholds constitutional and democratic values. It would also be appropriate
to state that the United Nations also under its Resolution No.58/4 dated
31st October, 2003 desired such conduct from public officials. Pertinent to
note that the government agencies in the State of Uttar Pradesh have
proposed to install the banners of accused persons in other cities also
where the protest took place and compensation is claimed against alleged
damage to public property. The proposed installation of banners in the
 -6-

city of Meerut is reported in newspapers of today only. Looking to the

state wide nature of impugned action, it cannot be said that this Court at
Allahabad is not having territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the cause
involved.

It is also stated by learned Advocate General that no cognizance of

an issue could have been taken in public interest litigation jurisdiction by
a single Bench may that be by the Chief Justice of this Court, as the
jurisdiction to do so is available to a Division Bench. According to
learned Advocate General, the reference of the issue for adjudication as a
public interest litigation is incompetent. We do not find any merit in this
argument. The Chief Justice has only noticed a wrong and directed the
Registry to place before a nominated Division Bench for its adjudication.
It is in accordance with settled norms to entertain a PIL suo motu.

The next submission of learned Advocate General is that the

persons whose photographs have been placed in the banners with their
identity have already challenged the notice issued to them for payment of
compensation for causing damage to public property. Hence, no useful
purpose shall be served by this public interest litigation, which essentially
pertains to recovery of compensation from such persons.

In our considered opinion, this limb of objection too is bereft of

merit. In the instant matter, the issue is not the compensation that is to be
recovered from any body but depiction of personal data of persons on a
road side, which may amount unwarranted interference in privacy of a
person.

In last, it is submitted by learned Advocate General that the object

of installing the banners with identity of certain persons is only to deter
citizens from participation in illegal activities. The placement of banners
with details of the accused persons at conspicuous place is in a larger
public interest and, therefore, the Court must not interfere with the same.

No doubt the state can always take necessary steps to ensure

 -7-

maintenance of law and order but that cannot be by violating fundamental

rights of people.

Now coming to the main issue about the unwarranted interference

in privacy of people, it would be appropriate to state that admittedly no
statutory provisions in this regard are available with the State. The State
has initiated the proceedings to charge compensation from the accused of
vandalism during protest in the month of December, 2019, on the basis of
a government order that is said to be in tune of the directions given by
Supreme Court in “Re:-Destruction of Public and Private Properties”
reported in 2009 (5) SCC 212. The government order referred by learned
Advocate General certainly provides a procedure to charge compensation
from the persons causing damage to the public property but that does not
permit the State to encroach privacy of a person. As already stated, we are
not concerned with validity of the compensation fastened but to the act
about disclosure of personal details of the accused persons.

Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the power is available

to a Court to publish a written proclamation requiring appearance of a
persons against whom a warrant has been issued and such person is
concealing himself to avoid execution of warrant. No other power is
available in the Code to police or the Executive to display personal
records of a person to public at large. There are certain provisions
empowering the investigating agencies or other Executives to take picture
of accused for the purpose of their identification and record but that too is
not open for publication. The only time these photographs be published is
to have assistance in the apprehension of a fugitive from justice.

The Supreme Court in Malak Singh and others Vs. State of

Punjab and Haryana and others reported in AIR 1981 SC 760 held that
even for history sheeters who have the necessary criminal history the
information about the history sheet and the surveillance has to be kept
discreet and confidential that cannot be shared with public and there is no
question of posting the photographs of history sheeters even at police
 -8-

stations.

The Supreme Court in People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL)

Vs. Union of India and another reported in 1997 (1) SCC 301 examined
the issue with regard to availability of a fundamental right of privacy. The
Apex Court discussed the concept and held as under:-

“12.Both sides have relied upon the seven-Judge Bench

judgment of this Court in Kharak Singh Vs. State of U.P. The
question for consideration before this Court was whether
"surveillance" under Chapter XX of the U.P. Police
Regulations constituted an infringement of any of the
fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.
Regulation 236(b) which permitted surveillance by
"domiciliary visits at night" was held to be violative of Article
21 on the ground that there was no "law" under which the said
regulation could be justified.

13. The word "life" and the expression "personal

liberty" in Article 21 were elaborately considered by this Court
in Kharak Singh's case. The majority read "right to privacy"
as part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution
on the following reasoning:

“We have already extracted a passage from the

judgment of Field, J. in Munn v. Illinois (1877) 94 U.S. 113,
142, where the learned Judge Pointed out that "life" in the 5th
and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution corresponding
to Article 21, means not merely the right to the continuance of
a person's animal existence, but a right to the possession of
each of his organs-his arms and legs etc. We do not entertain
any doubt that the word "life" in Article 21 bears the same
signification. Is then the word "personal liberty" to be
construed as excluding from its purview an invasion on the
part of the police of the sanctity of a man's home and an
intrusion into his personal security and his right to sleep
 -9-

which is the normal comfort and a dire necessity for human

existence even as an animal? It might not be inappropriate to
refer here to the words of the preamble to the Constitution that
it is designed to "assure the dignity of the individual" and
therefore of those cherished human value as the means of
ensuring his full development and evolution. We are referring
to these objectives of the trainers merely to draw attention to
the concepts underlying the Constitution which would point to
such vital words as "personal liberty" having to be construed
in a reasonable manner and to be attributed that sense which
would promote and achieve those objectives and by no means
to stretch the meaning of the phrase to square with any
preconceived notions or doctrinaire constitutional theories.
Frankfurter, J. observed in Wolfs. Colorado:

'The security of one's privacy against arbitrary

intrusion by the police is basic to a free society. It is therefore
implicit in 'the concept of ordered liberty' and as such
enforceable against the States through the Due Process
Clause. The knock at the door, whether by day or by night, as a
prelude to a search without authority of law but solely on the
authority of the police, did not need the commentary of recent
history to be condemned as inconsistent with the conception of
human rights enshrined in the history and the basic
constitutional documents of English-speaking peoples We have
no hesitation in saying that were a State affirmatively to
sanction such police incursion into privacy it would run
counter to the guaranty of the fourteenth Amendment.'

Murphy, J. considered that such invasion was against "the very

essence of a scheme of ordered liberty.

It is true that in the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court

from which we have made these extracts, the Court had to
consider also the impact of a violation of the Fourth
Amendment which reads :
 -10-

'The right of the people to be secure in their persons,

houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue but
upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.'

and that our Constitution does not in terms confer any like
constitutional guarantee. Nevertheless, these extracts would
show that an unauthorised intrusion into a person's home and
the disturbance caused to him thereby, is as it were the
violation of a common law right of a man-an ultimate essential
of ordered liberty, if not of the very concept of civilisation. An
English Common Law maxim asserts that "every man's house
is his castle" and in Semayne's case (1604) 5 Coke 91, where
this was applied, it was stated that "the house of everyone is to
him as his castle and fortress as well as for his defence against
injury and violence as for his repose". We are not unmindful of
the fact that Semayne's case was concerned with the law
relating to executions in England, but the passage extracted
has a validity quite apart from the context of the particular
decision. It embodies an abiding principle which transcends
mere protection of property rights and expounds a concept of
"personal liberty" which does not rest on any element of
feudalism or on any theory of freedom which has ceased to be
of value.

In our view Clause (b) of Regulation 236 is plainly

violative of Article 21 and as there is no "law" on which the
same could be justified it must be struck down as
unconstitutional.”

14. Subba Rao J. (as the learned Judge then was) in his
minority opinion also came to the conclusion that right to
privacy was a part of Article 21 of the Constitution but went a
step further and struck down Regulation 236 as a whole on the
 -11-

following reasoning:

“Further, the right to personal liberty takes in not only

a right to be free from restrictions placed on his movements,
but also free from encroachments on his private life. It is true
our Constitution does not expressly declare a right to privacy
as a fundamental right, but the said right is an essential
ingredient of personal liberty. Every democratic country
sanctifies domestic life; it is expected to give him rest, physical
happiness, peace of mind and security. In the last resort, a
person's house, where he lives with his family, is his "castle": it
is his rampart against encroachment on his personal liberty.
The pregnant words of that famous Judge, Frankfurter J., in
Wolfv. Colorado, (1949) 338 US 25, pointing out the
importance of the security of one's privacy against arbitrary
intrusion by the police, could have no less application to an
Indian home as to an American one. If physical restraints on a
person's movements affect his personal liberty, physical
encroachments on his private life would affect it in a larger
degree. Indeed, nothing is more deleterious to a man's physical
happiness and health than a calculated interference with his
privacy. We would, therefore, define the right of personal
liberty in Article 21 as a right of an individual to be free from
restriction or encroachments on his person, whether those
restriction or encroachments are directly imposed or indirectly
brought about by calculated measures. If so understood, all the
acts of surveillance under Regulation 236 infringe the
fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 21 of the
Constitution.”

15. Article 21 of the Constitution has, therefore, been

interpreted by all the seven learned Judges in Kharak Singh's
case (majority and the minority opinions) to include that "right
to privacy" is a part of the right to "protection of life and
personal liberty" guaranteed under the said Article.
 -12-

16. In Gobind Vs. State of U.P., a three-Judge Bench of

this Court considered the constitutional validity of Regulations
855 and 856 of the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations which
provided surveillance by way of several measures indicated in
the said regulations. This Court upheld the validity of the
regulations by holding that Article 21 was not violated because
the impugned regulations were "procedure established by law"
in terms of the said Article.

17. In R. Rajagopal alias R.R. Gopal and another v.

State of Tamil Nadu , Jeevan Reddy, J. speaking for the Court
observed that in recent times right to privacy has acquired
constitutional status. The learned Judge referred to Kharak's
case, Govind's case and considered a large number of
American and English cases and finally came to the
conclusion that "the right to privacy is implicit in the right to
life and liberty guaranteed to the citizens of this country by
Article 21. It is a "right to be let alone". A citizen has a right
"to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage,
procreation, motherhood, child-bearing and education among
other matters".

18. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that

right to privacy is a part of the right to "life" and "personal
liberty" enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. Once
the facts in a given case constitute a right to privacy, Article
21 is attracted. The said right cannot be curtailed "except
according to procedure established by law".

The issue again came up before a three Judges Bench of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and another Vs.
Union of India and others, 2015 (8) SCC 735, the Bench referred the
issue for its crystallization by a larger Bench. Accordingly, a Bench of
nine Judges examined the entire issue.

The Supreme Court in its historical judgment in Justice K.P.

 -13-

Puttaswamy and others Vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR
2017 SC 4161 affirmed the constitutional right to privacy. It declared
privacy an intrinsic component of Part III of Constitution of India that
lays down our fundamental rights relating to equality, freedom of speech
and expression, freedom of movement and protection of life and personal
liberty. These fundamental rights cannot be given or taken away by law
and laws. All the executive actions must abide by them. The Supreme
Court has however, clarified that like most other fundamental rights the
right to privacy is not “absolute right”. A persons privacy interests can be
overridden by compounding state and individual interests subject to
satisfaction to certain tests and bench marks. The nine Judges Bench
noticed certain tests and bench marks, which are liability, legitimate goal,
proportionately and procedural guarantees.

We have examined the action of the State under consideration in the

instant matter by the touch stones aforesaid. So far as legality part is
concerned, suffice to state that no law is in existence permitting the State
to place the banners with personal data of the accused from whom
compensation is to be charged. The legitimate goal as held by the
Supreme Court in the case of K.S. Puttaswamy (supra) the proposed
action must be necessary for a democratic society for a legitimate aim. On
scaling, the act of the State in the instant matter, we do not find any
necessity for a democratic society for a legitimate aim to have publication
of personal data and identity. The accused persons are the accused from
whom some compensation is to be recovered and in no manner they are
fugitive. Learned Advocate General also failed to satisfy us as to why
placement of the banners is necessary for a democratic society for a
legitimate aim.

The third test is that there should be rational nexus between the
object and means adopted to achieve them and further that how the extent
of interference is proportionate to its need. The object as disclosed to us is
only to deter the people from participating in illegal activities. On asking,
 -14-

learned Advocate General failed to satisfy us as to why the personal data

of few persons have been placed on banners though in the State of Uttar
Pradesh there are lakhs of accused persons who are facing serious
allegations pertaining to commission of crimes whose personal details
have not been subjected to publicity. As a matter of fact, the placement of
personal data of selected persons reflects colorable exercise of powers by
the Executive.

In entirety, we are having no doubt that the action of the State

which is subject matter of this public interest litigation is nothing but an
unwarranted interference in privacy of people. The same hence, is in
violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, the District Magistrate, Lucknow and the

Commissioner of Police, Lucknow Commissionerate, Lucknow are
directed to remove the banners from the road side forthwith. The State of
Uttar Pradesh is directed not to place such banners on road side
containing personal data of individuals without having authority of law.

A report of satisfactory compliance is required to be submitted by

the District Magistrate, Lucknow to the Registrar General of this Court on
or before 16th March, 2020. On receiving such compliance report, the
proceedings of this petition shall stand closed.

Order Date :- 9.3.2020

Bhaskar
(Ramesh Sinha, J.) (Govind Mathur, C.J.)
In Chamber

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 532 of

2020

Petitioner :- In-Re Banners Placed On Road Side In The City

Of Lucknow
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Suo Moto
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Chief Justice

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

In Re:-Time Extension Applications No.2 of 2020

While disposing of Public Interest Litigation No.532 of 2020,

the District Magistrate, Lucknow was directed to submit a
satisfactory compliance report of the directions given in the
judgment dated 9th March, 2020 to the Registrar General of this
Court on or before 16th March, 2020.

The District Magistrate, Lucknow has filed an application

seeking extension of time for compliance of the order dated 9th
March, 2020.

The application is supported by an affidavit sworn in by Sri

Abhishek Prakash, District Magistrate, Lucknow.

It is stated in the application as well as in the affidavit that the

State Government has preferred a Special Leave Petition
No.6286 of 2020 to question correctness of the judgment dated
9th March, 2020. The Special Leave Petition was heard by the
Supreme Court on 12th March, 2020. After considering the
nature of the matter and significance of the issue involved, the
Supreme Court ordered to place the matter before a Bench of at
least three Judges.

Learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of

Uttar Pradesh submits that in light of pendency of the Special
Leave Petition No.6286 of 2020 before the Supreme Court and
the order passed therein, it would be appropriate to have
compliance report after disposal of the Special Leave Petition.

Having considered the facts stated in the application and the

affidavit annexed there to, at this stage we deem it appropriate
to extend the time for filing the compliance report upto 10th
April, 2020.
The application stands disposed of.

An application of similar nature has also been filed by the

Commissioner of Police, Lucknow that too stands disposed of
in terms of this order.

Order Date :- 17.3.2020

Bhaskar

(Ramesh Sinha, J.) (Govind Mathur, C.J.)

 Chief Justice's Court
Serial No. 3014

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

***

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 532 of 2020

In Re. Banners Placed on Roadside in the City of .....Petitioner

Lucknow

v/s

State of U.P. .....Respondent

Through :- Mr. Manish Goyal, Additional Advocate General
with Mr. A.K. Goyal, Standing Counsel
CORAM : HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, JUDGE

ORDER

On request of learned counsel for the State, adjourned to December 12,

2022.

(J.J. Munir) (Rajesh Bindal)

Judge Chief Justice
Allahabad
14.09.2022
Deepak/I. Batabyal

Digitally signed by DEEPAK KUMAR

PANDEY
Date: 2022.09.17 09:45:15 IST
Reason:
Location: High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad
 Chief Justice's Court

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 532 of

2020

Petitioner :- In-Re Banners Placed On Road Side In The City Of

Lucknow
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

1. In the present suo moto petition, a detailed order was passed on

09.03.2022 giving certain directions and it was observed that on
receiving report of satisfactory compliance, the proceedings of the
petition shall stand closed, whereafter on 17.03.2020 on an
application seeking extension of time for compliance of the
direction, it was noticed that Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.
6286 of 2020 was pending consideration before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and, therefore, the matter was adjourned.

2. It is submitted by learned Government Counsel that the matter

continues to remain pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court.

3. In view of the above situation of pendency of the Special Leave

Petition, list the petition on 04.11.2024.
Order Date :- 4.7.2024
P.Sri./A.Prajapati
(Vikas Budhwar, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)

Digitally signed by :-
PUNEET SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad