Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 667 (ALL)

RIKHI DEO YADAV v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2008-03-26

ANJANI KUMAR, SUDHIR AGARWAL

body2008
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Petitioner has sought following relief in this writ petition : “A. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the respondents to comply the orders dated 27.12.2007 and 31.12.2007 (Annexures 5 and 7 respectively) passed by Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh and further be pleased to direct the District Magistrate, Azamgarh to hold enquiry in respect of 31 forged affidavits submitted by Sri Mahendra Yadav S/o Tilakdhari, Lazmi Shanker s/o Lala Yadav, Chandrajeet Singh S/o Ram Chander Singh, Raj Bahadur S/o Late Lotu Yadav and Dinesh S/o Jai Ram Yadav and to take action in accordance with law against the persons who forged the signatures of selected members of Kshettra Panchayat Tahbarpur, District Azamgarh if they are found guilty; B. issue writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the respondents not to adopt harassing attitude against the petitioner in day-to-day functioning as Pramukh, Kshettra Panchayat, Tahbarpur, District Azamgarh; C. issue such other and further writ, order or direction as the Hon’ble Court deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. D. award the cost of petition in favour of petitioner.” 2. With respect to the allegation of the petitioner about 31 forged affidavits submitted by certain persons and for making enquiry in that matter, he earlier filed writ petition No. 157 of 2008, wherein the relief No. 1 and 2 were as under : “(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No. 2, District Magistrate Azamgarh to hold an enquiry in respect of genuineness of affidavits of 31 members filed by respondents No. 3 to 7 along with application dated 13.12.2007 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 not to entertain the application dated 13.12.2007 filed by respondent No. 3 to 7 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) in respect of bringing no-confidence motion against the petitioner without verifying the genuineness and correctness of signatures on affidavits of 31 members of Kshettra Panchayat Block Tahbarpur District Azamgarh filed along with application dated 13.12.2007. (iii).................................................................................................. (iv)...................................................................................................” 3. (iii).................................................................................................. (iv)...................................................................................................” 3. This Court vide judgment dated 8.1.2008 rejected the aforesaid request of the petitioner holding as under : “This Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot direct respondent No. 2 as prayed in prayer No. II in the writ petition to hold enquiry in respect of genuineness of affidavits of 31 members filed by respondents No. 3 to 7 along with the application dated 13th December, 2007 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) whereby a meeting was sought to be convened for consideration of motion of no-confidence against the petitioner. Even assuming what the petitioner says may be correct, the persons who are supporting the petitioner would not cast their vote against the petitioner in the meeting for consideration of motion of no-confidence against the petitioner scheduled to be held on 10th January, 2008. Thus in our view the first prayer cannot be granted to the petitioner.” 4. In the aforesaid judgment dated 8.1.2008, this Court also noticed that for the same cause of action, the petitioner also filed a writ petition at Lucknow Bench, i.e., writ petition No. 62 (M/B) of 2008 and for the said reason, this Court found that the petitioner was guilty of filing a false affidavit making a wrong declaration in para-1 of the writ petition that he has not filed any earlier writ petition and, thus, his petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The observations of this Court are as under : “The petitioner, in paragraph 1 of the writ petition, has made submission before this Court in the present writ petition that this is first writ petition preferred by the petitioner before this Court for his grievance and further no other writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner either before this Court or before the Lucknow Bench of this Court and further the petitioner has not received any caveat notice on behalf of respondents or any other person in the matter. This submission made by the petitioner, in view of the facts stated above, is per se incorrect. Therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone as the petitioner has deliberately made false statement before this Court in filing the present writ petition.” 5. This submission made by the petitioner, in view of the facts stated above, is per se incorrect. Therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone as the petitioner has deliberately made false statement before this Court in filing the present writ petition.” 5. Here again, though worded differently, but a similar request has been made by the petitioner seeking writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to hold enquiry in respect to 31 alleged forged affidavit and in para-1 of the writ petition, a guarded declaration has been made in the following manner : “That this is the first writ petition preferred by the petitioner before this Hon’ble Court seeking direction for compliance of the orders passed by Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh dated 27.12.2007 and 31.12.2007 and directing the District Magistrate, Azamgarh to hold enquiry against the alleged five applicants/members; and further no other writ petition has been filed by the petitioner either before this Hon’ble Court or the Lucknow Bench in respect of the relief sought through this petition. And, further the petitioner has not received any caveat notice filed on behalf of either of the respondents in the matter, till date.” 6. We find that in effect and substance, the relief is same which has already been rejected by this Court on merits also and, therefore, the petitioner in this case also not only is guilty of making a false declaration but also has filed second writ petition though for the same cause of action his earlier writ petition has already been dismissed and, therefore, this writ petition is barred by Chapter XXII Rule 7 of the Rules of the Court as also by the principle of constructive res judicata. We were inclined to impose an exemplary cost upon the petitioner for filing repeated writ petitions for the same cause of action and that too when his request has already been rejected, but since the learned Counsel for the petitioner tendered unconditional apology and assured that in future the petitioner will not repeat this kind of conduct, we have refrained ourselves from imposing such cost. 7. This writ petition is dismissed summarily. ————