IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

*****

INDEX

IN

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. OF 2020

(Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)

( DISTRICT :: PRAYAGRAJ )

Shabih Fatima and Others …Petitioners.

Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others …Respondents.

Sl. Particular of Papers. Dates Annex. Page No.

No. No. Fm | To
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.
7.

8.
9.

10.

11.

10.

11.

(ShabihFatima) (Darshan Gupta)

(Kiran Srivastava) (Ayush Kumar Srivastava) (AyushYadav)

(Sagorikabasu)(Sarvashva Thakur) (Abhinav Kesarwani) (Akash Tripathi)

(Hardik Puri) (Parinita) (Nishant Chandra) (Priyanshu Mishra)

(ALL IN-PERSON)

Dated :………… Mob.:…………….

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
*****

DATES AND EVENTS

IN

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. OF 2020

(Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)

( DISTRICT :: PRAYAGRAJ )

Shabih Fatima and Others …Petitioners.

Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others …Respondents.

Dates Events
The petitioners are the law students doing internship under
the guidance of advocate Charlie Prakash and Law graduate
Prabal Pratap
 (ShabihFatima) (Darshan Gupta)

(Kiran Srivastava) (Ayush Kumar Srivastava) (AyushYadav)

(Sagorikabasu) (Sarvashva Thakur) (Abhinav Kesarwani) (Akash Tripathi)

(Hardik Puri) (Parinita) (Nishant Chandra)

(ALL IN-PERSON)

Dated :………… Mob.:…………….

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

*****

CIVIL MISC. STAY APPLCIATION No. OF 2020

(Under Chapter XXII Rule 1 of the High Court Rules)
On behalf of :-

Shabih Fatima……Applicant/Petitioner.

IN

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. OF 2020

(Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)

( DISTRICT :: PRAYAGRAJ )

District:Prayagraj

1. Shabih Fatima
D/o Shree Hasan Asghar Naqvi
B.A.LLB, 2nd Year, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi
R/o 467 Dariyabad
District- Prayagraj
2. Darshan Gupta
S/o Shree Sanjay Gupta
BBA.LLB, 2nd Year, Bharati Vidyapeeth, Pune
R/o 233/35 2b Ashok Nagar
District- Prayagraj
3. Kiran Srivastava
D/o Dr. Sudhir Kumar Srivastava
B.A.LLB 3rd Year C.M.P Degree College, Prayagraj
R/o 72, TilaknagarAllahapur
District- Prayagraj
4. Ayush Kumar Srivastava
 S/o Shree Sharad Kumar Srivastava
B.A. LLB, 3rd Year, C.M.P Degree College, Prayagraj
R/o : 112 A Ashok Nagar
District: Prayagraj
5. Ayush Yadav
S/o Shree Santlal Yadav
B.A.LLB 2nd Year Faculty of Law, Allahabad University
R/o 5/3A T.B. Sapru Road, Civil Lines
District- Prayagraj
6. SagorikaBasu
D/o ShreePrasun Kumar Bose
LLB 1st Year, Loveluy Professional University, Punjab
R/o 52 A, Tularam Bagh, M.G. Marg
District- Prayagraj
7. Sarvashva Thakur
S/o Shree D.P Singh
B.A.LLB 3rd Year Bharati Vidyapeeth, Pune
R/o 273/18C NyayVihar Colony, Sulem Sarai
District- Prayagraj
8. Abhinav Kesarwani
S/o Shree Rajeev Kesarwani
B.A.LLB 3rd Year Bharati Vidyapeeth, Pune
R/o 61A/Banaras Road, Phaphamau
District- Prayagraj
9. Akash Tripathi
S/o Shree R.N.M Tripathi
B.A.LLB 3rd Year Bharati Vidyapeeth, Pune
R/o 432/87/2 D.K. Dalel Ka Pura, Allahapur
District- Prayagraj
10.Hardik Puri
S/o Shree Rajesh KuamrPuri
 B.A.LLB 2ndYear SVKM’S NMIMS University, Indore
R/o 8/3 Shivkuti, Teliarganj
District- Prayagraj
11.Parinita
S/o Shree Ranbir Kumar Singh
B.A.LLB 3rd Year Chanakya National Law University, Patna
R/o Bose Park, M.G. Road
District- Bhagalpur
12.Nishant Chandra
S/o Dr. Pankaj Chandra
B.A.LLB 3rd Year Chanakya National Law University, Patna
R/o 190-F- Alopi Bagh
District- Prayagraj
13. Priyanshu Mishra

S/o Shree Pramod Kumar Mishra

B.B.A. LLB 2nd Year, Bharati Vidya Peeth, Pune.

R/o 68/ 16 Indra prastha Colony, Mumfordganj

District- Prayagraj

…Petitioners.
Versus

1. State of U.P
(Through its Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare)
Lucknow
2. District Social Welfare Officer
Prayagraj
3. District Magistrate
Prayagraj

…Respondents.
To,

The Hon’ble the Chief Justice and his other companion Judges of the
aforesaid court.

The humble application on behalf of above named, Applicant/ Petitioner,

Most Respectfully Showeth as under:

1. That the full facts and circumstances of the case have been stated in the
accompanying (PIL) writ petition, which forms part of this application.

PRAYER

It is therefore most respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble Court may direct the
respondents to ensure the minimum requirements in buildings, offices and
washrooms of the educational institutions and offices in Nagar Nigam Area,
Prayagraj during the pendency of this writ petition or to pass any order or direction
which the Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(ShabihFatima) (Darshan Gupta)

(Kiran Srivastava) (Ayush Kumar Srivastava) (AyushYadav)

(Sagorikabasu) (Sarvashva Thakur) (Abhinav Kesarwani) (Akash Tripathi)

(Hardik Puri) (Parinita) (Nishant Chandra) (Priyanshu Mishra)

(ALL IN-PERSON)

Dated :………… Mob.:…………….

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

*****

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. OF 2020

(Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)
 ( DISTRICT :: PRAYAGRAJ )

District:Prayagraj

1. Shabih Fatima
D/o Shree Hasan Asghar Naqvi
B.A.LLB, 2nd Year, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi
R/o 467 Dariyabad
District- Prayagraj
2. Darshan Gupta
S/o Shree Sanjay Gupta
BBA.LLB, 2nd Year, Bharati Vidyapeeth, Pune
R/o 233/35 2b Ashok Nagar
District- Prayagraj
3. Kiran Srivastava
D/o Dr. Sudhir Kumar Srivastava
B.A.LLB 3rd Year C.M.P Degree College, Prayagraj
R/o 72, TilaknagarAllahapur
District- Prayagraj
4. Ayush Kumar Srivastava
S/o Shree Sharad Kumar Srivastava
B.A. LLB, 3rd Year, C.M.P Degree College, Prayagraj
R/o : 112 A Ashok Nagar
District: Prayagraj
5. Ayush Yadav
S/o Shree Santlal Yadav
 B.A.LLB 2nd Year Faculty of Law, Allahabad University
R/o 5/3A T.B. Sapru Road, Civil Lines
District- Prayagraj
6. SagorikaBasu
D/o Shree Prasun Kumar Bose
LLB 1st Year, Loveluy Professional University, Punjab
R/o 52 A, Tularam Bagh, M.G. Marg
District- Prayagraj
7. Sarvashva Thakur
S/o Shree D.P Singh
B.A.LLB 3rd Year Bharati Vidyapeeth, Pune
R/o 273/18C NyayVihar Colony, Sulem Sarai
District- Prayagraj
8. Abhinav Kesarwani
S/o Shree Rajeev Kesarwani
B.A.LLB 3rd Year Bharati Vidyapeeth, Pune
R/o 61A/Banaras Road, Phaphamau
District- Prayagraj
9. Akash Tripathi
S/o Shree R.N.M Tripathi
B.A.LLB 3rd Year Bharati Vidyapeeth, Pune
R/o 432/87/2 D.K. Dalel Ka Pura, Allahapur
District- Prayagraj
10.Hardik Puri
S/o Shree Rajesh KuamrPuri
B.A.LLB 2nd Year SVKM’S NMIMS University, Indore
R/o 8/3 Shivkuti, Teliarganj
District- Prayagraj
11.Parinita
S/o Shree Ranbir Kumar Singh
B.A.LLB 3rd Year Chanakya National Law University, Patna
 R/o Bose Park, M.G Road
District- Baghalpur
12.Nishant Chandra
S/o Dr. Pankaj Chandra
B.A.LLB 3rd Year Chanakya National Law University, Patna
R/o 190-F- Alopi Bagh
District- Prayagraj
13. Priyanshu Mishra

S/o Shree Pramod Kumar Mishra

B.B.A. LLB 2nd Year, Bharati Vidya Peeth, Pune.

R/o 68/ 16 Indra prastha Colony, Mumfordganj

District- Prayagraj

…Petitioner.
Versus
1. State of U.P
(Through its Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare)
Lucknow
2. District Social Welfare Officer
District: Prayagraj
3. District Magistrate.
District: Prayagraj

…Respondents.

To,

The Hon’ble the Chief Justice and his other companion Judges of the
aforesaid court.
 The humble application on behalf of above named, Petitioner, Most
Respectfully Showeth as under:

1. That this is the first Writ Petition being filed on the present cause of action
and no other Petition of any kind has been filed by or on behalf of the
Petitioners for the same or similar relief.
2. That no copy of the caveat application has been received by the Petitioners
nor do Petitioners have any knowledge regarding filing of any caveat
application on behalf of any of the Respondents.
3. That the petitioners have no ill-will of prejudice towards anyone and they
are not prejudiced in filing the present Public Interest Litigation.
4. That the petitioners are not filing this petition to benefit themselves or to
harm any person or institution.
5. That the petitioners are not filing this Public Interest Litigation at the behest
of some other persons to fulfill their other motives.
6. That the petitioners are not filing this Public Interest Litigation for any
personal interest or personal gain.
7. That this P.I.L. has not been sponsored, and is not at the behest of some
persons having ulterior motive and it has complied with the requirements
contained in Chapter XXII (3A) of the High Court Rules.
8. That the petitioners are the law students who are doing internship on Human
Rights under the guidance of Adv. Charlie Prakash and Prabal Pratap at the
office of the Human Rights Legal Network at Prayagraj.
9. That under the mandatory guidelines of the Bar Council of India, if law
students undergoing 5 years course have to attend 10 internships
compulsorily in different fields. One of the fields for internship is Human
Rights in which the petitioners are expected to study the cases of violation of
human rights, environmental rights, juvenile rights, women rights, do fact
finding and if necessary prepare a fact finding report, sending it to various
commissions like Human Rights Commission, Commission for Women’s
Rights, NCPCR, etc. The law interns also file PILs and argue in person
before the Hon’ble High Courts and Supreme Courts.
10. That a meeting was conducted in the office of Human Rights Legal
Network and it was decided that a fact finding team will be constituted
which shall visit the public offices, government educational institutions and
government offices to check the facilities for the differently-abled persons
and will form a report on the basis of their survey.
11.That the team of law interns studied various guidelines issued by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, University Grants Commission and legal
provisions related to protection of rights of persons with disabilities.
12.That during the survey, the fact finding team visited various public offices
and educational institutions and consequently found that none of the
buildings were disabled-friendly and there were no sufficient means of
making the establishment accessible by differently-abled persons.
13.That around the globe more than 650 million men, women and children
suffer from either mental or physical disability. They suffer from
discrimination and lower standards of living.
14.That persons with disabilities include those who have long-term physical,
mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various
barriers may hinder their full and effective participation on an equal basis
with others.
15.That in order to protect and promote the rights and dignity of persons with
disability, Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities (CRPD),
2006 was formulated to which India became a signatory on 30th March,
2007.
16.That article 9 of CRPD provides measures that shall include identification
and elimination of barriers to accessibility. These are applicable to buildings,
roads, transportation and other indoor and outdoor facilities including
schools, medical facilities and work places. A photocopy of the extract from
convention on the rights of persons with disabilities highlighting the
provisions of accessibilities under article 9 is marked and annexed as
‘Annexure No.1’ to this writ petition.
17.That in spite of the enabling policies and guidelines at international, national
and state level, there have been challenges faced by implementers and
service providers because of lack of appropriate and cost-effective
technology options which are disabled-friendly.
18.That design options relating to the construction of disabled-friendly
buildings need to be analyzed. The most cost-effective way to improve
access for persons with disabilities is to incorporate accessibility into the
design from the outset (inclusive design) rather than making expensive
changes later.
19.That persons with disabilities may have difficulty with balance, co-
ordination, weak grip, squatting or lifting, because of this they experience
many problems. Inclusive planning of water and sanitation services is a must
to ensure and uplift the rights of persons with disabilities and to form an
equitable environment for the differently-abled.
20.That construction of ramps, paths, support rails, landmarks and sign boards
for blind people, thresholds, wide entrance, flat platform in front of door,
easy to close doors, seating arrangement shall be designed and constructed
to adapt and modify and to provide assistance for the purpose of
accessibility.
21.That “gradient” describes the change in height over specified distance. The
gradient slope of a ramp shall be designed in a way that can improve the
accessibility for the differently-abled in the buildings.
22.That proper construction of steps, latrines, accessible door, door handles and
closing mechanisms, internal space, seating, hand rails and grab bars is
necessary for proper accessibility and ease to the differently-abled. A
photocopy of the extracts of a handbook on accessible household sanitation
for persons with disabilities (PwDs) published by the ministry of drinking
water and sanitation, government of India dated December 2015 is marked
and annexed as ‘Annexure No. 2’ to this writ petition.
 23.That most government buildings are not disabled-friendly in terms of
accessible ramps for wheelchair entry, lack of disabled-friendly toilets,
unavailability of wheelchairs and escalators, audio-visual signs.
24.That most of the buildings do not have ramps and those buildings which
have ramps are not accessible as the ramps are too steep and difficult to use
which may lead to a risk of falling as the wheelchairs descend at a faster
pace.
25.That disabled people specially blind citizens, need tactile paving in buildings
as it allows them to navigate seamlessly without harming themselves.
26.That most of the government buildings do not have disabled-friendly toilets
and differently-abled people have to wait till they reach home to attend
nature’s call.
27.That in the matter of Disabled Rights Group v. Union of India and Ors., the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, ordered that accessibility to buildings of
the central and state governments should be made easier for differently-
abled people. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India issued eleven directions
requiring both centre and state governments to provide accessibility features
for physically challenged people in such buildings. A true copy of the
judgement dated 15th December, 2017 is marked and annexed as ‘Annexure
No. 3’ to this writ petition.
28.That section 41 of the Disabilities Act, 2016, provides for comprehensive
accessibility.
29.That it is the duty of the Union of India, States as well as Union Territories
to ensure that all government building are disabled-friendly in accordance
with the harmonized guidelines and they are duty bound to see that the
building become disabled-friendly.

GROUNDS

I. BECAUSE, That the respondents have done irreparable

damage to the greenery of the Prayagraj and damage its eco
 system beyond repair, that the promise and commitment of the
respondent district magistrate, ADA, Forest department have
miserably failed about the planting of the double no. of trees,
that the respondents acted like nexus to destroy the green
cover of the city and they were only interested in the
construction of the roads its widening and modernization
which had faced huge budget , that the trees are the lifeline of
the city its operate like the lungs and such non sensible is
voilative of Article.21 of the constitution .

II. BECAUSE, That the provisions of the Environment protection

act 1986 was completely violated that India being the signatory
of the united nations conference on the human environment
held at Stock home has committed for the protection and
improvement of the environment which has been completely
given go by.

III. BECAUSE, the forest department, development authority had

no planning and program for the alternative of the either new
trees or transportation of those trees by using technology
because the rising the temperature in the city is direct result of
large scale trees felling. And there is every probability of death
due to sunstroke that trees are lungs of the cities and cutting of
the trees is voilative of Article 21 of the constitution.

IV. BECAUSE, this condition the cutting of trees will lead to the
environmental hazard that is dangerous, harmful and will keep
further deteriorating in the absence of these trees.
 V. BECAUSE, in regards with the environment it is also important
to mention here that, the level of groundwater in Prayagraj is
getting decreased by 62 cm every year, this is a result of over-
exploitation of water and less rainfall, which would become a
regular condition in this city due to mass cutting of the trees
which help in holding water by their roots through the process
of “Percolation.”

VI. BECAUSE, the cutting of trees comes under violation of

Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which provides for Right
to live in natural habitat and is against the principle of
sustainable development and healthy livelihood.

VII. BECAUSE, the petitioners have no other equally, effective,

speedy, adequate and alternative remedy than to approach this
honorable court under article 226 of the constitution of India on
the following amongst other ground

PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may
graciously be pleased to:
 i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS
directing the Respondent District Magistrate and Divisional Forest
Officer, Prayagraj from granting any permission for cutting or felling
of trees without leave of the Hon’ble High Court..

ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS

commanding the Respondents to provide the chart on Affidavit about
the numbers of the trees cut down, and number of trees planted along
with the area before this Hon’ble Court.

iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS

commanding the Respondents No. 2, 3, and 4 to take up a massive
drive for the plantation of trees like Sheesham, Mango, Jamun,
Bargad, Pakad, Tamrind, and other big and utilitarian trees, in the
Nagar Nigam area of Prayagraj.

(ShabihFatima) (Darshan Gupta)

(Kiran Srivastava) (Ayush Kumar Srivastava) (AyushYadav)

(Sagorikabasu) (Sarvashva Thakur) (Abhinav Kesarwani) (Akash Tripathi)

(Hardik Puri) (Parinita) (Nishant Chandra) (Priyanshu Mishra)

(Ayush Yadav)

(ALL IN-PERSON)

Dated :………… Mob.:…………….

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
*****

DECLARATION

IN

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. OF 2020

(Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)

( DISTRICT :: PRAYAGRAJ )

AyushSrivastava and Others …Petitioners.

Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others …Respondents.

I, Darshan Gupta ,aged about 19 years Son of Sanjay Gupta R/o 233/35 2B Ashok
Nagar Baba Chauraha, District-Prayagraj, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare
that the contents of para
nos._______________________________________________________________
_____________________&__of the accompanying writ petition are true to my
personal knowledge and information received and those contents of paragraph
nos._______________________________________________________________
__&___of the accompanying writ petition are based on perusal of record and those
contents of paragraph nos.
__________________________________________________________&__of the
accompanying writ petition are based on legal advice; which all I believe to be true
that no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed in it.
1. That due to lockdown the deponent is not in a position to swear affidavit and
the contents of writ petition alongwith Annexures have been read over and
verified.

2. That the deponent undertakes that he will file the proper affidavit after the
lockdown is over or if required by this Hon’ble Court.

3. That in view of the above facts and circumstances this Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to take this verification on record and treat the same as part of writ
petition, to meet the ends of justice.

So Help Me God.

(ShabihFatima) (Darshan Gupta)

(Kiran Srivastava) (Ayush Kumar Srivastava) (AyushYadav)

(Sagorikabasu) (Sarvashva Thakur) (Abhinav Kesarwani) (Akash Tripathi)

(Hardik Puri) (Parinita) (Nishant Chandra) (Priyanshu Mishra)

(ALL IN-PERSON)

Dated :………… Mob.:…………….