Mohd. Anwar Khan Vs. State of U.P. and Others</B>

Mohd. Anwar Khan vs State of U.P. and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Jan 11, 1999

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/465985

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/465985
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: D.K. Seth, J.
Decided On: Jan 11, 1999
Case Number: C.M.W.P. No. 40264 of 1998
Subject: Constitution

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Constitution - mandamus for obeying earlier Order - Article 226 of Constitution of India - mandamus is direct Order issued by Court to person who is bound to comply with the same - non-compliance thereof attracts the provisions of Contempt of Court Act - held, there cannot be a fresh mandamus, directing a person to ...

Key legal issue: Constitution
Acts & sections: Constitution of India - Articles 215 and 226

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mohd. Anwar Khan

Advocate Gajendra Pratap, Adv.

Respondent

State of U.P. and Others

Advocate S.C.

Legal References

Acts: Constitution of India - Articles 215 and 226
Reported In: 1999(1)AWC911

Excerpt

constitution - mandamus for obeying earlier order - article 226 of constitution of india - mandamus is direct order issued by court to person who is bound to comply with the same - non-compliance thereof attracts the provisions of contempt of court act - held, there cannot be a fresh mandamus, directing a person to comply with the mandamus already issued. - .....commanding the respondents to obey the mandamus issued in another case. mandamus is a direct order or direction issued by the court to a person who is bound to comply with the same. non-compliance thereof attracts the provisions of contempt of courts act or those of article 215 of the constitution of india. there cannot be a fresh mandamus, directing a person to comply with the mandamus already issued to him. such a concept would be contrary to the concept of issue of writ which are direct orders or directions issued to a person in the form of command. in disobedience of a command, a fresh command need not be issued. disobedience of a command invites consequence of disobedience not a fresh command. therefore, the prayer (i) cannot be allowed.2. the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had made a representation on the ground that he is similarly situated with the petitioners in writ petitionno. 8148 of 1990, since been decided on 21.7.1993 and. therefore, his case should be considered similarly in terms of the order passed in writ petition no. 8148 of 1990 by the lucknow bench of this court.3. after hearing mr. v. k. rai, learned brief holder and the learned counsel gajendra pratap, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent no. 1 to consider the petitioner's representation contained in annexure-3 in accordance with law according to his own wisdom and discretion having regard to the decision dated 21st july, 1993, passed in writ petition no. 8148 of 1990 by the lucknow bench of this court being annexure-1 to the writ petition, provided the petitioner is similarly situated and the principle and ratio decided therein is applicable in the petitioner's case and the petitioner is otherwise eligible and entitled to be so considered, as early as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is communicated to the concerned respondent.4. the writ petition is thus disposed of.5. no cost.

Full Judgment

D. K. Seth, J.

1. The prayer (i) made in the writ petition seeking a mandamus commanding the respondents to follow the mandamus issued by this Court In another case described therein is wholly misconceived. There cannot be a mandamus for commanding the respondents to obey the mandamus issued in another case. Mandamus is a direct order or direction issued by the Court to a person who is bound to comply with the same. Non-compliance thereof attracts the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act or those of Article 215 of the Constitution of India. There cannot be a fresh mandamus, directing a person to comply with the mandamus already issued to him. Such a concept would be contrary to the concept of issue of writ which are direct orders or directions issued to a person in the form of command. In disobedience of a command, a fresh command need not be Issued. Disobedience of a command invites consequence of disobedience not a fresh command. therefore, the prayer (i) cannot be allowed.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had made a representation on the ground that he is similarly situated with the petitioners in Writ PetitionNo. 8148 of 1990, since been decided on 21.7.1993 and. therefore, his case should be considered similarly in terms of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 8148 of 1990 by the Lucknow Bench of this Court.

3. After hearing Mr. V. K. Rai, learned Brief Holder and the learned counsel Gajendra Pratap, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent No. 1 to consider the petitioner's representation contained in Annexure-3 in accordance with law according to his own wisdom and discretion having regard to the decision dated 21st July, 1993, passed in Writ Petition No. 8148 of 1990 by the Lucknow Bench of this Court being Annexure-1 to the writ petition, provided the petitioner is similarly situated and the principle and ratio decided therein is applicable in the petitioner's case and the petitioner is otherwise eligible and entitled to be so considered, as early as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is communicated to the concerned respondent.

4. The writ petition is thus disposed of.

5. No cost.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 1999 Same Parties Mohd. Anwar Khan vs State of U.P. and Others Same Subject Constitution Same Judge D.K. Seth, J. Acts & Sections Constitution of India - Articles 215 and 226

Constitution