Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAMAKANT BHARTI AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' PRINCIPAL SECY. DEPTT. OF FOREST & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ramakant Bharti And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru' Principal Secy. Deptt. Of Forest & Ors. - WRIT - C No. 17351 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 6887 (29 March 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.34

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17351 of 2006

Ramakant Bharti & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

~~~~~

Hon. Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

This petition has been filed for a direction upon the District Magistrate, Mau and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mau to take immediate action for the holding of the Navratri fare by the petitioners which is going to start from 30.3.2006 and for a direction upon the said respondents for compelling the officials of the Forest Department to abide by the directions of the Civil Court as well as of this Court and to remove the barbed wires.

We have heard Sri S.K. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the materials available on record.

The records reveal that earlier the petitioners had filed a writ petition in this Court being Writ Petition No. 30301 of 2005 in which on 19.4.2005 after granting time to file the Counter-Affidavit and Rejoinder-Affidavit, the Court passed an order restraining the respondents from interfering in the realisation of Tehbazari by the petitioners until further orders of this Court.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that inspite of the aforesaid order, the officials of the Forest Department have put up barbed wires around the Mela ground as a result of which the crowd cannot enter the Mela area.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has contended that the relief claimed in this petition is basically that what had been claimed in the earlier petition filed by the petitioners which is still pending disposal and in any view of the matter in case the interim order was not complied with, then the remedy available to the petitioners was to file a Contempt Petition but the present petition cannot be entertained.

We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. It is clear from the averments made in paragraph 14 of the petition that the earlier writ petition was filed by the petitioner when their attempts to stop the officials of the Forest Department from interfering with their rights to hold the fare and realise the Tehbazari had failed. The grievance raised in the present petition is also with regard to the interference by the officials of the Forest Department with regard to the holding of the fare and realization of the Tehbazari and infact the second prayer is for directing the officials of the Forest Department to abide by the directions issued by this Court. In our opinion, the second petition for the same cause of action is clearly not maintainable. This apart, in case there has been any non-compliance of the interim order passed in Writ Petition No. 30301 of 2005, then the proper course for the petitioners was to file a Contempt Petition and, indeed, in paragraph 27 of the writ petition it has been stated that the Contempt Petition was filed in which notices have been issued.

Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the decision of the Madras High Court in R. Gandhi and others Vs. Union of India & Anr. AIR 1989 Mad. 205 in support of his contention that inaction of the law by the law enforcing authorities cannot be countenanced. In our opinion, this decision does not help the petitioners at all inasmuch we have not considered the merits of the case but intend to dismiss the petition for the reasons stated above.

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Dt/-29.3.2006

Sharma


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.