Haridwar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and Another

Haridwar Pandey vs State of U.P. and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Aug 27, 1998

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/483866

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/483866
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: D.K. Seth, J.
Decided On: Aug 27, 1998
Case Number: C.M.W.P. No. 37911 of 1994
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

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

Civil - writ petition - Chapter 21 Rule 7 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 and Article 226 of Constitution of India - whether successive writ petitions for same cause of action maintainable - held, not maintainable-petition dismissed. - U.P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION & LANDS REFORMS ACT, 1951 [Act No. 1/1951]...

Key legal issue: Civil
Acts & sections: Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 - Rule 7; Constitution of India - Article 226; Dying in Harnes Rules

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Haridwar Pandey

Advocate Govind Krishna, Adv.

Respondent

State of U.P. and Another

Advocate K.R. Singh and ;S.C.

Legal References

Acts: Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 - Rule 7; Constitution of India - Article 226; Dying in Harnes Rules
Reported In: 1998(4)AWC64; [1999(81)FLR126]

Excerpt

civil - writ petition - chapter 21 rule 7 of allahabad high court rules, 1952 and article 226 of constitution of india - whether successive writ petitions for same cause of action maintainable - held, not maintainable-petition dismissed. - u.p. zamindari abolition & lands reforms act, 1951 [act no. 1/1951]. section 3(4) & u.p. land revenue act, (3 of 1901). sections 14-a (3) & 14; [s.rafat alam, r.k.agarwal & ashok bhushan, jj] expression collector- held, it includes additional collector. powers and functions of collector can be exercised by additional collector under section 198(4) of 1950 act, provided he has been so directed by collector of the district. [1996 aihc 3628 overruled]......pointed out by mr. k. r. singh, learned standing counsel, it appears that the petitioner had already filed a writ petition being w.p. no. 29878 of 1994, which was disposed of on 12.9.1994 with the following order :'as the matter is to be decided on facts by the respondents in accordance with law. i do not propose to enter into the merits of the writ petition. accordingly, i direct the respondent no. 2 to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner (annexure-2) dated 21.7.93 by a reasoned order within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order as also a copy of the said representation before him. however, the petitioner, as prayed for, is granted liberty to file a supplementary representation along with a certified copy of this order and if such a representation is filed, the same will also be disposed of by the respondent no. 2 while disposing of the earlier representation as stated hereinabove. with this observation, the writ petition is finally disposed of.' 4. the petitioner having obtained one order on the same cause of action once in his earlier writ petition, he cannot claim same relief in a second writ petition in view of the provisions of chapter xxii, rule 7 of the allahabad high court rules. mr. govind krishna submits that he has notprayed for the same relief though cause of action is the same. on the other hand he contends that though the petitioner had filed a representation in terms of the order dated 12.9.94, but the same has not been decided as yet and therefore he has filed a fresh writ petition. such contention is devoid of merit. inasmuch as there was an order for consideration of his representation in the order dated 12.9.94. if the said order is not complied with, it was open to him to take resort to appropriate proceedings for non-compliance thereof. the court cannot go on repeating its order neither the court passes any infructuous order. therefore, same cause of action which was.....

Full Judgment

D.K. Seth, J.

1. Father of the petitioner died on 5.6.1993. The petitioner had applied for appointment under the Dying In Harness Rules on 21.7.1993. It is alleged that this application has not been considered. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ petition praying for appointment under the said rules.

2. Mr. Govind Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the petitioner is eligible for appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules, therefore, appointment should have been given to the petitioner and thus writ petition should be allowed.

3. However, as pointed out by Mr. K. R. Singh, learned standing counsel, it appears that the petitioner had already filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 29878 of 1994, which was disposed of on 12.9.1994 with the following order :

'As the matter is to be decided on facts by the respondents in accordance with law. I do not propose to enter into the merits of the writ petition. Accordingly, I direct the respondent No. 2 to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner (Annexure-2) dated 21.7.93 by a reasoned order within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order as also a copy of the said representation before him.

However, the petitioner, as prayed for, is granted liberty to file a supplementary representation along with a certified copy of this order and if such a representation is filed, the same will also be disposed of by the respondent No. 2 while disposing of the earlier representation as stated hereinabove.

With this observation, the writ petition is finally disposed of.'

4. The petitioner having obtained one order on the same cause of action once in his earlier writ petition, he cannot claim same relief in a second writ petition in view of the provisions of Chapter XXII, Rule 7 of the Allahabad High Court Rules. Mr. Govind Krishna submits that he has notprayed for the same relief though cause of action is the same. On the other hand he contends that though the petitioner had filed a representation in terms of the order dated 12.9.94, but the same has not been decided as yet and therefore he has filed a fresh writ petition. Such contention is devoid of merit. Inasmuch as there was an order for consideration of his representation in the order dated 12.9.94. If the said order is not complied with, it was open to him to take resort to appropriate proceedings for non-compliance thereof. The Court cannot go on repeating its order neither the Court passes any infructuous order. Therefore, same cause of action which was involved in the earlier writ petition which was sought to be remedied is again sought to be remedied by way of this writ petition where he is praying for the same order which had already been passed in his earlier writ petition on 12.9.94.

5. Therefore, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 1998 Same Parties Haridwar Pandey vs State of U.P. and Another Same Subject Civil Same Judge D.K. Seth, J. Acts & Sections Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 - Rule 7; Constitution of In...

Civil