Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 95 (ALL)

Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of U. P.

2005-01-20

VINEET SARAN

body2005
VINEET SARAN, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri R. B. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned. Standing counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 and Sri Neeraj Tiwari, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is an employee of the Nagar Panchayat, Siswan Bazar, Maharajganj. By an order dated 2. 12. 1999 of the Project Director, State Urban Development Agency (S. U. D. A. ). , the petitioner was taken on deputation with S. U. D. A. till the regular arrangement was made by s. U;d. A. or until further Orders. The petitioner accordingly joined S. U. D. A. on 6. 12. 1999. Thereafter by an Order dated 30. 12. 2003 the petitioner was sent back by the Director, S. U. D. A. to his original post in Nagar Panchayat, Siswan Bazar, Maharajganj. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 4089 of 2004 which was dismissed by this Court on merits vide judgment and Order dated 6. 2. 2004. ( 3 ) AFTER the dismissal of the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner filed another Writ Petition No. 7177 of 2004 through a different Counsel again challenging the same Order dated 30. 12. 2003. On humanitarian considerations, after taking into account the fact that the children of the petitioner were studying in schools in Maharajganj and on an undertaking given on behalf of the petitioner, the said petition was disposed of by this Court on 26. 2. 2004 in terms of the undertaking that by third week of May, 2004 the petitioner shall join the post of which he had been reverted back by Order dated 30. 12. 2003. It was further specified in the said Order that in case if the petitioner did not join by third week of May, 2004, the respondents would be at liberty to take departmental action against the petitioner in accordance with law. 12. 2003. It was further specified in the said Order that in case if the petitioner did not join by third week of May, 2004, the respondents would be at liberty to take departmental action against the petitioner in accordance with law. It is pertinent to mention here that the second Writ Petition No 7177 of 2004 had been filed without disclosing the fact of filing earlier Writ Petition No. 4089 of 2004 on the same cause of action, or else the said direction may not have been issued, ( 4 ) YET another Writ Petition No. 19430 of 2004 had been filed by the same petitioner and again without disclosing the fact of filing the earlier two writ petitions. It appears that the third writ petition had been filed to circumvent the Order passed in the second writ petition directing the petitioner to join back his parent office by the third week of May, 2004. The third writ petition which was itself filed in the third week of May, 2004 was primarily based on some letter which had been written by the District Magistrate to the Director, State Urban Development Agency on 15. 5. 2004 for retaining the petitioner in S. U. D. A. Relying on such letter of the District magistrate, the third writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 19. 5. 2004 with the direction to the Director, S. U. D. A. to decide the representation of the petitioner with regard to his continuance on deputation in the State Urban Development Agency. ( 5 ) NOW this is the fourth writ petition by the petitioner filed virtually on the same cause of action. In this writ petition the petitioner has only disclosed about the filing of third Writ Petition No. 19430 of 2004 as the same dealt with a direction to the Director, S. U. D. A. to decide the representation of the petitioner, which, according to the petitioner, has not been decided. However, it is pertinent to note that there is no mention of the earlier two writ petitions filed by him nor has it has been mentioned that the earlier Order dated 30. 12. However, it is pertinent to note that there is no mention of the earlier two writ petitions filed by him nor has it has been mentioned that the earlier Order dated 30. 12. 2003 which had been challenged in the first two writ petitions and was still continuing, had yet not been complied with despite the undertaking given by the petitioner in the second writ petition of his joining his parent department in the third week of May, 2004. In such view of the matter, it is prima facie clear that the petitioner has concealed material facts from this Court while filing this writ petition and had also resorted to such tactics of concealing facts and obtaining Orders from this Court by filing successive writ petitions. This writ petition is thus liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. It is also surprising that although this Court had left it open to the respondent-authorities to take suitable action against the petitioner in case of non-compliance of the undertaking given by the petitioner, yet no action has been taken against him. ( 6 ) HOWEVER even on merits, the petitioner has no case. Admittedly he was sent from the Nagar panchayat on deputation to S. U. D. A. where he joined on 6. 12. 1999. By the Government Order dated 15. 11. 2003 it has been clearly provided that the maximum period for which a person can be sent on deputation would be 5 years and after that he has to be reverted back to his parent department/post. While dismissing the first Writ Petition No. 4089 of 2004 this Court had considered the provisions of the aforesaid Government Order dated 15. 11. 2003 and clearly observed that the said Order could only mean that the maximum period for which a person can remain on deputation is 5 years and not that he has to remain on deputation for at least 5 years. Even otherwise the period of 5 years has also expired on 5. 12. 2004 and as such the impugned order which has been passed on 22. 12. 2004 reverting the petitioner back to Nagar Panchayat on his completion of 5 years cannot be said to be wrong or illegal. The Government Order dated 15. 11. 2003 has also been challenged in this writ petition. 12. 2004 and as such the impugned order which has been passed on 22. 12. 2004 reverting the petitioner back to Nagar Panchayat on his completion of 5 years cannot be said to be wrong or illegal. The Government Order dated 15. 11. 2003 has also been challenged in this writ petition. However no ground whatsoever has been taken in the writ petition on the basis of which the challenge to this Government Order could be sustained. Even otherwise the said Government Order had already been considered in the earlier Writ Petition No. 4089 of 2004 and thus the petitioner could not have challenged the same in this subsequent writ petition. In such circumstances on merits also I do not find any good ground for interference with the impugned Order dated 22. 12. 2004 passed by respondent no. 4, the Additional District Magistrate/project Director, District Urban Development Agency, maharajganj; nor is there any ground for quashing the Government Order dated 15. 11. 2003, thus, besides being not maintainable, this writ petition also lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. ( 7 ) CONSIDERING the fact that the petitioner has been filing successive writ petitions without disclosing the material fact of having filed earlier writ petitions for the same cause of action, in my view this writ petition ought to be dismissed with costs. Keeping in view that this is the fourth writ petition and thus the respondents have been dragged into litigations time and again; I award cost of Rs. 10,000/- which I assess to be just and proper in the circumstances of this case. ( 8 ) THE petitioner is directed to deposit the said amount of costs with the respondent No. 3, the district Magistrate/chairman, District Urban Development Agency (DUDA), Gorakhpur within two months from today or else the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur shall recover the same from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue. The said amount so deposited by the petitioner or recovered from him shall be thereafter deposited with the State Legal Aid Committee. ( 9 ) THE office is directed to hand-over a copy of this Order to Sri Ravi Ranjan, learned Standing counsel within a week to enable him to communicate it to the concerned respondents. The said amount so deposited by the petitioner or recovered from him shall be thereafter deposited with the State Legal Aid Committee. ( 9 ) THE office is directed to hand-over a copy of this Order to Sri Ravi Ranjan, learned Standing counsel within a week to enable him to communicate it to the concerned respondents. ( 10 ) THE office is also directed to send a copy of this Order to respondent No. 3, the District magistrate/chairman, District Urban Development Agency (DUDA), Gorakhpur for necessary compliance. . .