High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Surya Prakash Yadav v. State Of U.P. Thru' Principal Secretary, U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 1210 of 2007  RD-AH 3895 (7 March 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1210 of 2007
Surya Prakash Yadav
State of U.P. and others
Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.
Heard learned Counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri R.K. Srivastava and Sri S.K. Mishra, for respondents.
Earlier, petitioner, Surya Prakash Yadav, had approached this Court by preferring writ petition No.42405 of 2006 before this Court, and this Court on 08.08.2006 had given liberty to him to represent his case before the District Magistrate and the District Magistrate was asked to decide the matter with reasoned order after affording opportunity to the parties. Pursuant to order dated 08.08.2006, District Magistrate, Deoria took up the matter and decided the same by means of order dated 25.09.2006. Questioning the validity of order dated 25.09.2006, writ petition No.57612 of 2006 had been filed by Surya Prakash Yadav, the petitioner. In the said writ petition Sri S.K. Mishra, Advocate appeared on behalf of caveator. This Court on presentation of said writ petition was not inclined to grant interim order, and order to the following effect, which is being quoted below, was passed:
"Learned Standing counsel represents respondent Nos.1 and 2. Sri R.K. Srivastava, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos.3, 5 and 7. Sri V.K. Singh, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No. 4. Sri S.K. Mishra, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 6. They pray for and are granted three weeks time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within a week thereafter.
Having failed to get interim order, novel device has been adopted by the petitioner by preferring instant writ and therein validity of the order dated 25.09.2006 has again been questioned without disclosing the factum of earlier writ petition, wherein only counter affidavit had been invited. This time ignoring the caveator petitioner has succeeded in procuring interim order. Such a novel device adopted by petitioner is deprecated, as it is nothing but misuse of judicial proceedings.
Consequently, writ petition is dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs.20,000/-. Out of which Rs.10,000/- shall be deposited with the Legal Service Committee, High Court, Allahabad and the remaining Rs.10,000/- shall be paid to Pawan Kumar Muishra, contesting respondent No.6. The entire amount of cost shall be deposited by the petitioner with the Registrar General of the Court, within one month from today, failing which the same shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The interim order stands vacated.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.