Allahabad High Court
Indra Singh And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 7 June, 2021
Bench: Sanjay Yadav, Acting Chief Justice, Prakash Padia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 244 of 2021
Petitioner :- Indra Singh And 4 Others
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Srivastava,Deepak Kumar Jaiswal
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sanjay Yadav,Acting Chief Justice
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
The matter is taken up through Video Conferencing.
Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava and Sri Deepak Kumar Jaiswal appear on behalf of petitioners.
Learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of respondents.
Petitioners by way of present writ petition seek following directions:
"I) A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to provide compensation to the petitioner @ 100/-per Sq. yard according the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court.
II) A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 11.05.2017 within stipulated period.
III) Issue any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."
It is borne out from the record that the petitioners for self same relief had filed Petition Writ (C) No.31728 of 2019, which was dismissed on 01.11.2019 as not pressed. The said order is reproduced for ready reference:
"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
After advancing some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners made a prayer that this petition may be dismissed as not pressed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed."
Evident it is that the petitioner did not seek any liberty to file fresh writ petition.
In Sarguja Transport Service Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P. Gwalior and Others (1987) 1 SCC 5 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
"9. The point for consideration is whether a petitioner after withdrawing a writ petition filed by him in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without the permission to institute a fresh petition can file a fresh writ petition in the High Court under that Article. On this point the decision in Daryao case is of no assistance. But we are of the view that the principle underlying rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code should be extended in the interests of administration of justice to cases of withdrawal of writ petition also, not on the ground of res judicata but on the ground of public policy as explained above. It would also discourage the litigant from indulging in bench-hunting tactics. In any event there is no justifiable reason in such a case to permit a petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution once again. While the withdrawal of a writ petition filed in a High Court without permission to file a fresh writ petition may not bar other remedies like a suit or a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India since such withdraw- al does not amount to res judicata, the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be deemed to have been abandoned by the petitioner in respect of the cause of action relied on in the writ petition when he withdraws it without such permission. In the instant case the High Court was fight in holding that a fresh writ petition was not maintainable before it in respect of the same subject-matter since the earlier writ petition had been withdrawn without permission to file a fresh petition. We, however. make it clear that whatever we have stated in this order may not be considered as being applicable to a writ petition involving the personal liberty of an individual in which the petition- er prays for the issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus or seeks to enforce the fundamental fight guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution since such a case stands on a different footing altogether. We however leave this question open."
In view whereof, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Petition accordingly fails and is dismissed. No costs.
Order Date :- 7.6.2021
N Tiwari
(Prakash Padia,J.) (Sanjay Yadav,A.C.J.)
