High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ramu & Others v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 58241 of 2006  RD-AH 18985 (9 November 2006)
Court No. 40
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 58241 of 2006
Ramu and others vs. State of U.P. & others
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52786 of 2006
Niranjan & others vs. The State of U.P. & others
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
These two writ petitions are connected with each other have been filed by the same petitioners challenging the same order passed by the consolidation authorities.
Writ petition no. 52786 of 2006 was filed on 19.9.2006 and was placed before the court on 21.9.2006. On the said date on the request made by learned counsel for the petitioners the case directed to be listed on 9.10.2006. Immediately thereafter, the petitioners got another writ petition prepared through another counsel. The Stamp Reporter made a report that an identical writ petition has been filed by Sri K.P.S. Yadav, Advocate in which caveat application of Sri A.P.Srivastava and Sri Arvind Kumar, Advocate has been marked. This writ petition was numbered as 58241 of 2006 and was presented on 17.10.2006. The petition was placed before the court. On 19.9.2006 the case was directed to be listed in the next cause list along with record of writ petition no. 52786 of 2006. Today both the writ petitions have been listed before me.
A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioners in writ petition no.58241 of 2006 stating therein that they have never filed any other writ petition before this court for the same cause of action and this is the first writ petition being filed by them.
Today when both the writ petitions were presented, a request was made by learned counsel for the petitioners that they may be permitted to withdraw both the writ petitions with liberty to file a fresh writ petition. In the facts and circumstances, where the petitioners have misused the process of the court by filing two writ petitions for the same relief and cause of action the prayer to withdraw the writ petition is rejected.
Supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners in writ petition no. 58241 of 2006 stating that they never filed any writ petition, also appears to be totally false. Earlier writ petition no. 52786 of 2006 was filed by the petitioners and it appears, when they failed to obtain any interim order they filed other writ petition little realizing that the Stamp Reporter will make a report with regard to caveat of other writ petition. In view of the report made by the Stamp Reporter, counsel for the petitioners in writ petition no. 58241 of 2006 served a copy of the same on Sri A.P.Srivastava who had filed caveat, this is how the filing of first writ petition no.52786 of 2006 by the same petitioners came to light.
Since the petitioners have deliberately filed a second writ petition by concealing the fact of filing earlier writ petition against the same order, both the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. Normally, not only heavy cost ought to have been imposed on the petitioners for having misled the court but they are also liable to be prosecuted for contempt and perjury, but in view of the humble submission advanced by learned counsel that petitioners are rustic villagers and dismissal of the writ petition would deprive them of their rights in the land for all times and that would be sufficient punishment, I do not propose any further action against the petitioners.
In the result, both the writ petitions stand dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.