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


Ashok Kumar Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. Panchayat Raj & Ors. - WRIT - C No. 34303 of 2004 [2004] RD-AH 606 (23 August 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).



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.




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.