Allahabad High Court
C/M, Shri Narheji Inter College, ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Collector ... on 3 January, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 837 of 2022
Petitioner :- C/M, Shri Narheji Inter College, Baliya Thru. Manger Sri Arjun Gopalan
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Collector ,Balia And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Girish Chandra Verma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Heard.
The present petition has been filed for the following main reliefs:-
"(i) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 15.11.2022 passed in Revision No. 2342/2022 by the opposite party no. 2 as well as the impugned order dated 08.09.2022 passed by the opposite party no. 3, contained as Annexure no. 1 & 2 to the writ petition. This Hon'ble Court is further pleased to quash the entire proceedings of Case no. 06/2022, 'State of U.P. vs. Manager, Sri Naraheji Higher Secondary School and another' as the same is not maintainable.
(ii) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties no. 1 & 3 to not to proceed in the case no. 06/2022 pending in the court of opposite party no. 3 and also not to implement the order dated 08.09.2022 again the petitioner."
By means of the order dated 15.11.2022 passed in Revision No. 2342 of 2022, the revision filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 08.09.2022 as also to decide the issue of maintainability of suit for declaration i.e. Case No. 06 of 2022 (State of U.P. Versus Sri Narheji Higher Secondary School and Others) pending before the opposite party no. 3-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Rasada, District Balia, was rejected on the ground that the revision is not maintainable. By the order dated 08.09.2022, the opposite party no. 3 i.e. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Rasada, District Balia, passed an interim order.
Opposing the present petition for the main reliefs sought, quoted above, Sri Hemand Kumar Pandey, learned State Counsel stated that on the ground indicated in the petition the suit/plaint/proceedings pending before the opposite party no. 3, cannot be set aside. It is further stated that petitioner is having statutory remedy to prefer an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of plaint. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the following judgments:-
(1) MANU/UP/0943/2022 (Muhammad Saghir Khan Vs. U.P. Sunni Central Board of Waqf Lucknow and Others
(2) (2014) 6 SCC 508 (Jacky Vs. Tiny and Others)
(3) PIL No. 28238 of 2016 (Ajay Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P. And Others) decided on 19.09.2022
Further submission is that so far as the order dated 08.09.2022 is concerned, against this order also the petitioner is having remedy to prefer an appeal under Section 207 of Code of 2006. In this regard he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed in Writ-B No. 368 of 2022 (Mahendra Singh and Others Vs. Board of Revenue U.P. and Others) decided on 31.05.2022.
In response thereof, Sri G.C.Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioner after arguing at some length stated that he does not want to press this petition and the same may be disposed of finally with liberty to the petitioner to prefer an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, which applies in view of Section 214 of Code of 2006 and some period be prescribed for disposal of the said application.
Considering the aforesaid and without entering into the merits of the case, the writ petition is finally disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to prefer an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC within a period of two weeks from today. If such an application is preferred by the petitioner, the same shall be considered and decided by the concerned authority in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order, after providing opportunity of hearing to the affected parties, expeditiously say within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. In concluding the same, the concern authority shall avoid unnecessary adjournments to either party.
Needless to say that while considering the application of petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC the concerned Revenue Court would not be influenced by any observation on merits of the case made by the revisional authority in its order dated 08.09.2022, as the revision was decided only on the ground of its maintainability.
Order Date :- 3.1.2023/Jyoti/-
