Anil Kumar Ojha vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 8264 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 34
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6928 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Ojha
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Lok Nath Shukla
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.

Heard learned counsel for parties.

This petition has been preferred seeking the following relief:

"i. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 to consider and pass appropriate order on the report dated 29.5.2019 submitted by the respondent no.2 before the respondent no.1, within the period to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court;"

The record indicates that the services of the petitioner came to be terminated in 1982. That order of termination was challenged in proceedings instituted before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal. The petition preferred by the petitioner came to be dismissed by the Tribunal. Against the aforesaid judgement of the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred a writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7353 of 1995 which was dismissed summarily by the Court. Aggrieved by the judgment rendered on that petition the petitioner preferred a Review Petition which too came to be dismissed in 2008. The petitioner thereafter appears to have made some representations to the State Government which called upon the second respondent to submit a report. That report, according to the petitioner, has been submitted by the said respondent on 21 March 2018. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the present writ petition has come to be preferred and filed.

As the relief claimed would indicate the petitioner invokes the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution requiring the first respondent to take further action on the report which is alleged to have been submitted by the respondent No. 2. The Court finds no justification for the petitioner having sought to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction. The first respondent is sufficiently empowered to take further administrative action on the report which is stated to have been submitted. In any case and in light of the litigative history which has been noted above, there was no occasion for the petitioner to have preferred the instant writ petition.

Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.

Order Date :- 19.7.2021

Arun K. Singh

(Yashwant Varma, J.)