'Publicity Interest Litigation': Allahabad High Court Dismisses PIL Over Alleged Forced Closure Of Non-Veg Shops During Kanwar Yatra
The Allahabad High Court on Friday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea alleging that shopkeepers dealing in non-vegetarian food were being compelled or harassed to close their shops during the Kanwar Yatra, observing that the petition appeared to be aimed at 'publicity' rather than public interest.
A bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra found that the petition did not disclose the names of the shopkeepers allegedly served with closure notices and failed to establish an actual cause.
The Court further observed that the petitioner, an Advocate, had apparently filed the PIL mala fide, noting that the same petitioner had separately made representations seeking closure of liquor shops on the Kanwar Yatra route.
The PIL plea alleged that shopkeepers dealing in non-vegetarian food were being “compelled/harassed to close the shops” between July 30 and August 24, 2026, during the Kanwar Yatra.
The petitioner annexed purported blank notices, allegedly signed by the In-charge Inspector, Police Station Amroha Nagar, District Amroha, claiming that the notices had been served upon shopkeepers.
However, the Court noted that the petition 'nowhere' disclosed the names of the shopkeepers on whom the notices were allegedly served.
The Bench observed that if the notices had in fact been served and enforced against any shopkeepers, "the shop-keepers themselves have the cause to question the validity of the notice/action".
The Court also took note of the petitioner's conduct as it observed thus:
"The petitioner, an Advocate, is seeking to project the case of the shopkeepers, which apparently is mala fide, inasmuch as, the same petitioner has made representations seeking closing down of the liquor shops on the 'Kanwar Yatra' route".
The intention, apparently, has been to misuse the PIL jurisdiction for the reasons best known to the petitioner, the Bench further observed.
The Bench also took exception to the filing of petitions of this nature without pleading actual cause, producing material in support of the petition, or even getting the news published about the filing of such petitions.
The Court observed:
"Filing of the petitions of present nature, without pleading actual cause and producing material in support of the petition and publishing news even regarding filing of the petitions of present nature essentially are Publicity Interest Litigations and not Public Interest Litigations, which conduct of the petitioner, cannot be countenanced".
Against this backdrop, the bench dismissed the PIL plea, stating that it had “no substance”.
Case Title: Nasir Farooq vs State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 582
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 582