Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Khoob Chandra v. Director of Agriculture, Lucknow - WRIT - C No. 23046 of 2004 [2004] RD-AH 265 (24 May 2004)


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).




Khoob Chandra -------------    Petitioner              


Director of Agriculture,

Lucknow           -------------  Respondents


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

Hon'ble D.P. Gupta, J.

This petition reveals as how the litigants could muster the courage to abuse and misuse the process of the Court for the satisfaction of their whims and approach the Court without any sense of responsibility just to waste public time.

The petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 17.4.2003 (Annex. 2),  approving the auction of Seeds Storage in favour of 5 persons, who are not even parties in the writ petition, on the allegation that approval had been granted illegally as none of the highest bidders had fulfilled the terms and conditions of the auction, i.e., depositing of 25% of the contract amount on the date of auction.

The petitioner has approached this Court after expiry of about more than 15 months without furnishing any explanation of delay; nor he reveals as how he is interested in the case whether he had also participated in the bid; nor he has impleaded any person, who had been the auction bidder and the contract had been awarded. The allegations of mala fides have been made against the respondent no. 5 that he was relative of one of the contractors, therefore, he accorded the approval to the auction. Respondent No. 5 has also not been impleaded by name.

In such a fact situation, writ petition cannot be entertained for want of necessary parties. (Vide Udit Narain Singh Malpaharin Vs. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar & anr., AIR 1963 SC 786; Prabodh Verma Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1985, SC 167; Ishar Singh Vs. Kuldeep Singh 1995 (Supp) 1, SCC 179; Bhagwati & Ors. Vs. Subordinate Service Selection Board, Haryana & Ors., 1995 (Supp) 2 SCC 663; Central Bank of India Vs. S. Satyam & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 419; J. Jose Dhanapaul Vs. S. Thomas & Ors., (1996) 3 SCC 587; Arun Tiwari & Ors. Vs. Zila Manasavi Shikshak Sangh & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 331; Azar Hasan & Ors. Vs. District Judge, Saharanpur 1998, 3 SCC 246; Ram Swarup & Ors. Vs. S.N. Maira & Ors., (1999) 1 SCC 738; Chandra Kishore Singh Vs. State of Manipur & Ors., (1999) 8 S.C.C. 287; Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani & Ors. Vs. District & Sessions Judge, Nagpur & Ors., (2000) 2 SCC 606; Nirmala Anand Vs. Advent Corporation (P) Ltd. & Ors., (2002) 5 SCC 481 and M.P. Rajya Sahkari Bank Maryadit Vs. Indian Coffee Workers' Cooperative Society Ltd. & Ors (2002) 9 SCC 204; and Ramrao & Ors. Vs. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Association & Ors., (2004) 2 SCC 1976).

In the instant case, no person has been impleaded by the petitioner by name against whom allegations of mala fide have been made. Such a writ petition cannot be entertained on the ground of mala fide unless the party against whom allegations are made is impleaded as respondent by name. (Vide J.M. Banawalikar  Vs.  Municipal Corporation, Delhi  & ors., AIR  1996  SC 326;  State of Bihar  &  ors. Vs.  P.P. Sharma, 1992 (Suppl) 1 SCC 222; I.K. Mishra Vs. Union of India & ors., (1997) 6  SCC 228;  and   All   India   State   Bank   Officers Federation & ors. Vs. Union of India & ors., JT 1996 (8) SC 550).  

In Federation of Officers Association Vs. Union of India & ors, 2003 AIR SCW 1764 the Apex Court has held that the allegation of mala fide has to be specifically made and the person against whom such allegations are made has to be impleaded and in his absence such allegations cannot be taken into consideration.

The petition has been filed on such a wild and scandalous allegation without any sense of responsibility and without knowing how the petition can be presented, and that too by the person who has no concern with the contract, after expiry of 14 months of the said contract. We fail to understand  how such a petition can be maintained.

Petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-, to be recovered from the petitioner by the learned District Collector, Pilibhit, as the arrears of land revenue and the same be deposited with the Legal Services Committee of this Court within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order along with the photostat copy of the writ petition to the learned District Collector, Pilibhit for compliance of the same.




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


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 |

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