High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Vinay Kumar Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 70979 of 2005  RD-AH 6019 (18 November 2005)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 70979 of 2005
Vinay Kumar Singh Versus State of U.P.and others
Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J
The dispute in this writ petition is with regard to the election of the Manager of the Committee of Management of Santoshi Maa Kanya Vidyalaya, Deokali, Jaunpur. In pursuance of the Judgment and Order dated 25.2.2005 passed in writ petition no. 31661 of 2003 Committee of Management Santoshi Maa Kanya Vidyalaya, Deokali, Jaunpur and another vs. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits and others, in which the petitioner Vinay Kumar Singh was arrayed as Respondent no.4, the Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Varanasi Region, Varanasi, Respondent no.2, passed an order on 26.8.2005 recognizing Respondent no.5 Hanuman Singh as the Manager of the said society and by the same order the claim of the petitioner Vinay Kumar Singh had been rejected. Challenging the said order the petitioner filed writ petition no.5062 (M/S) of 2005 Vinay Kumar Singh vs. Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits and others before Lucknow Bench of this Court. By Judgment and Order dated 15.9.2005 passed in the aforesaid writ petition, the Lucknow Bench of this Court had directed certain issues to be decided afresh by the Registrar after hearing the parties and giving opportunity to them to lead evidence. The order dated 26.8.2005 had not been set aside by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition.
On 29.9.2005 the District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur, Respondent no.3, wrote to the District Government Counsel (Civil), Jaunpur, Respondent no.4, seeking his opinion as to whether the aforesaid judgment dated 15.9.2005 passed by Lucknow Bench of this Court would amount to setting aside the order of the Registrar dated 26.8.2005 or not. In response, on 7.10.2005 the District Government Counsel has given his opinion that by the said judgment the order dated 26.8.20005 passed by the Registrar has not been set aside and as such the same is in operation.
By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the letter dated 29.9.2005 issued by the Respondent no.3 and the letter dated 7.10.2005 issued by the Respondent no.4. Besides this, a prayer has also been made for a direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to enforce the order dated 26.8.2005 passed by the Registrar.
I have heard Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel appearing for Respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Sri N.C.Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the contesting Respondent no.5.
This writ petition appears to have been filed by the petitioner only in order to keep a dispute pending. The letters dated 29.9.2005 and 7.10.2005 are nothing but an internal communication between the Respondent nos. 3 and 4. The main prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to the respondents not to give effect to the order dated 26.8.2005 passed by the Registrar. The said order dated 26.8.2005 of the Registrar had already been challenged before Lucknow Bench of this Court in writ petition no. 5602 (M/S) of 2005, which has been finally decided on 15.9.2005. It is not the case of the petitioner that by the said judgment, the order dated 26.8.2005 had been set aside. By making a prayer before this Court not to give effect to the order of the Registrar dated 26.8.2005, the petitioner is virtually wanting to re-open the matter afresh, which has already been decided by the Lucknow Bench on 15.9.2005. In case if the petitioner had any such genuine grievance, he ought to have approached the Lucknow Bench of this Court for any clarification, if the same was so required. By once filing a writ petition before the Lucknow Bench and subsequently filing another writ petition at Allahabad, the petitioner is only trying to prolong the litigation. Accordingly, in my view, the petitioner has thus abused the process of Court by filing this writ petition.
Sri N.C.Tripathi has submitted that by merely keeping this writ petition pending, the sole purpose of the petitioner to raise a further dispute before the authorities concerned that since the matter is pending before the High Court, no further decision should be taken.
In such view of the matter, since I am of the firm view that the filing of this writ petition by the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of the process of Court, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed with cost.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed with cost, which I assess to be Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only). The petitioner shall deposit the amount of cost with the High Court Legal Services Committee, Allahabad within one month from today, failing which the Registrar General of this Court shall request the District Magistrate, Jaunpur to recover the same as arrears of land revenue and remit the said amount by a bank draft in the name of the Registrar General of this Court for being deposited with the High Court Legal Services Committee.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.