High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ashok Kumar Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. Panchayat Raj & Ors. - WRIT - C No. 34303 of 2004  RD-AH 606 (23 August 2004)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.34303 of 2004
Ashok Kumar Singh ......... Petitioner
State of U.P. & Ors. ......... Respondents
Hon. Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.
Hon. D.P. Gupta, J.
This is a scandalous writ petition filed by the petitioner just to make the Court prejudiced, without any sense of responsibility. Allegations of taking commission/bribe has been made against the statutory authorities without impleading any person by name. This kind of allegations cannot be read in a writ petition in view of the law laid down of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar & anr. Vs. P.P. Sharma, I.A.S. & Anr, 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 222; Dr. J.N. Banavalikar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr., AIR 1996 SC 326; I.K. Mishra Vs. Union of India & Ors., (1997) 6 SCC 228; All India State Bank Officers Federation & ors Vs. Union of India & ors., JT 1996 (8) SC 550; and Federation of Railway Officers Association & ors Vs. Union of India, 2003 AIR SCW 1764, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the law how to consider and treat the allegations of mala fides, observing that in case, a person is not impleaded by name as respondent, the allegations of mala fide can never be alleged and, if so made, cannot be read in a Court of law.
This writ petition has been filed raising the grievance for quashing the auction proceedings, though no auction ever took place. Only tenders of some other contractor have been accepted vide order dated 26th July, 2004 and prayer is being made for quashing the acceptance of the tender of the said contractor. The Contractor has not been impleaded as a party in the petition, therefore, no order adversely affecting him can be passed if he is not a party in the writ Court in view of the judgment of Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia Vs. Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, AIR 1963 SC 786, wherein it has been held that in case, a matter is decided behind the back of the party, it has a right to refuse to take notice of the judgment of the Court as it had been passed in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice without giving any opportunity to him.
Similar view has been reiterated in Prabodh Verma & ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors., AIR 1985 SC 167; Ishwar Singh & ors. Vs. Kuldip Singh & ors., 1995 Supp (1) SCC 179; Bhagwanti & ors. Vs. Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana & anr., 1995 Supp (2) SCC 663; Central Bank of India Vs. S. Satyam & ors., (1996) 5 SCC 419; J. Jose Dhanapaul Vs. S. Thomas & ors., (1996) 3 SCC 587; Arun Tewari & ors. Vs. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh & ors., AIR 1998 SC 331; Azhar Hasan & ors. Vs. District Judge, Saharanpur & ors., (1998) 3 S.C.C. 246; Ram Swarup & ors. Vs. S.N. Maira & ors. (1999) 1 S.C.C. 738; and L. Chandrakishore Singh Vs. State of Manipur & ors., (1999) 8 SCC 287.
The pleadings made in this writ petition are vague and have not been made substantiated by adducing any evidence, whatsoever, in support of the case.
It is settled proposition of law that a party has to plead the case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate his submissions made in the petition and in case the pleadings are not complete, the Court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas. In Bharat Singh Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1988 SC 2181, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"In our opinion, when a point, which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or the counter-affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. There is a distinction between a hearing under the Code of Civil Procedure and a writ petition or a counter-affidavit. While in a pleading, i.e. a plaint or written statement, the facts and not the evidence are required to be pleaded. In a writ petition or in the counter affidavit, not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it."
Similar view has been reiterated in M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat & ors., AIR 1998 SC 1608; National Building Construction Corporation Vs. S. Raghunathan & ors., AIR 1998 SC 2779; Ram Narain Arora Vs. Asha Rani & ors., (1999) 1 SCC 141; Chitra Kumari Vs. Union of India & ors., AIR 2001 SC 1237; and State of U.P. & ors. Vs. Chandra Prakash Pandey, AIR 2001 SC 1298.
In Atul Castings Ltd. Vs. Bawa Gurvachan Singh, AIR 2001 SC 1684, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-
"The findings in the absence of necessary pleadings and supporting evidence cannot be sustained in law."
Similar view has been reiterated in Vithal N. Shetti & Anr. Vs. Prakash N. Rudrakar & ors., (2003) 1 SCC 18.
In view of the above, the petition amounts to nothing less than abuse of process of the Court. Filing this kind of writ petition is deprecated and the conduct of the petitioner is censored being reprehensible.
The petition is dismissed with the cost of Rs.10,000/- upon the petitioner. The learned District Collector, Jaunpur is directed to recover aforesaid amount from the petitioner - Ashok Kumar Singh, son of Aditya Narayan Singh, resident of Ram Nagar Bharsara, Post Office Shivapar, District Jaunpur, as arrears of land revenue within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and deposit the same in the Legal Services Committee, High Court, Allahabad.
A copy of this order be sent to the District Collector, Jaunpur through learned Standing Counsel for compliance.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.