Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra Kumar Nigam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 March, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14481
1 WP-10428-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 24 th OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 10428 of 2025
RAJENDRA KUMAR NIGAM
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Devendra Kumar Tripathi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Yash Soni - Deputy Advocate General for the respondents No.1 to 3-State.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition claiming following reliefs:-
"1. to call for entire relevant record.
2. to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus and direct the respondent
no.3 to take action on the complaints made by the petitioner and others
by lodging complaint enquire about the matter and take action in
accordance with law.
3. Any other relief together cost of the petition which this Hon'ble
Court deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of this
case may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner."
2. Relief No.2 is that writ in the nature of mandamus be issued to direct the
respondent No.3 to take action on the complaints made by the petitioner and
others by lodging complaint enquire about the matter and take action in
accordance with law.
3. The only complaint on which emphasis is placed, is available on record as
Annexure P-7 and it is mentioned that matter be enquired in terms of the orders of
the High Court (wrongly mentioned as Supreme Court) dated 28.05.2024.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14481
2 WP-10428-2025
4. Copy of the order of the High Court passed in W.P. No.14645/2024 on
28.05.2024 is on record and it reads as under:-
"1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-
i) to call for entire relevant record.
ii) to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus and direct the
respondent to take decision on the complaints made by the
petitioner and others, and conduct enquiry if found
substance in the complaints made by the petitioner.
iii) Any other relief together cost of the petition which this
Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper under the facts and
circumstances of this case, may also be awarded in favour of
the petitioner.
2. In the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme
Court in the case of Gurpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab,
reported in (2005) 5 SCC 136, since a writ petition seeking
departmental action against an employee is not maintainable
by a stranger, therefore, counsel for the petitioner seeks
permission of this Court to withdraw this petition with
liberty to take legally permissible recourse available to him.
3. With aforesaid liberty, the petition is dismissed as
withdrawn."
5. Thus, it is evident that the said writ petition was withdrawn. Therefore, it is
not understandable that how a petition which was withdrawn can be executed in
terms of the complaint (Annexure P-7). Thus, it is evident that petition is wholly
misconceived though Shri Devendra Kumar Tripathi has tried to make out a case
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14481
3 WP-10428-2025
that petitioner has enclosed all the necessary documents.
6. Such kind of petitions where there is no correlation between the relief
claimed and the documents forming basis for it, only reflects two things, namely,
non application of mind on the part of the counsel and equally the over
anxiousness of the party to mislead the Court to seek some or the other relief by
vehemently arguing the matter contrary to the pleadings. Both these practices
needs to be curbed. This not only takes away valuable time of the High Court, but
also reflects the mindset of the party concerned and their counsel that they can take
the Court for a ride by misleading it by putting forth impressive oral arguments
contrary to the pleadings.
7. As far as law is concerned, arguments can be in support of the pleadings and
anything said dehors the pleadings is not required to be registered and answered
to.
8. In view of such facts, petition being totally misconceived, is dismissed with a
cost of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) to be recovered from the
petitioner and to be deposited in the M.P. High Court Legal Services Committee,
Jabalpur for utilization of poor and needy litigants.
9. In view of above, writ petition fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
pp
