Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 569 (ALL)

Satya Prakash Verma v. State of U. P. and Others

2010-02-11

KASHI NATH PANDEY, S.P.MEHROTRA

body2010
Hon'ble Kashi Nath Pandey, J.;- The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner, inter-alia, praying for quashing the order of termination dated 19.01.1990. By the said order dated 19.01.1990, the services of the petitioner who was holding the post of Inspector, Work - III, were terminated. The prayer clause of the present Writ Petition is reproduced below:- "(a) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order of termination dated 19.01.1990' passed by opposite party no. 2. (b) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus direction in the officials concerned to pay suspension allowance/substance amount of 3/4th of the salary of the petitioner after lapse of three months of suspension. (c) To issue such other writ, order or direction in the circumstances of the case which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to give adequate relief to the petitioner. (d) To allow this Writ Petition with costs to the petitioner."? The Stamp Reporter has submitted? his Report dated 08.02.2010 that the Writ Petition was in time up to 19th April, 1990, and is thus beyond time by 19 years 298 days on the date of reporting. The present Writ Petition has been filed on 9th February, 2010. From a perusal of the Writ Petition, we do not find any explanation for the inordinate delay in filing the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is therefore liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. There is one more aspect of the matter. In paragraph 2 of the Writ Petition, it has, inter-alia, been stated that the present Writ Petition is second Writ Petition being filed by the petitioner. As the details of the first Writ Petition have not been mentioned in the present Writ Petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has supplied the same on query being made by the Court. ?Learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the first Writ Petition filed by the petitioner was Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13943 of 1990 decided on 19.01.1998. The record of the said Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13943 of 1990 has been summoned from the Registry. A perusal of the said Writ Petition, namely, Civil Misc. ?Learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the first Writ Petition filed by the petitioner was Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13943 of 1990 decided on 19.01.1998. The record of the said Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13943 of 1990 has been summoned from the Registry. A perusal of the said Writ Petition, namely, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13943 of 1990 shows that the said Writ Petition was based on the same cause of action as is pleaded in the present Writ Petition. Identical prayers were made in the said Writ Petition. Prayer clause of the said Writ Petition,? i.e., Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13943 of 1990 is reproduced below:- "(a) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impunged order of termination dated 19.01.1990 passed by opposite party no. 2. (b) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the officials concerned to pay suspension allowance/subsistance amount of 3/4th of the salary of the petitioner after lapse of three months of suspension; (c) To issue such other writ, order or direction in the circumstances of the case which this Hon;ble Court may deem fit and proper to give adequate relief to the petitioner. (d) To allow this writ petition with costs to the petitioner." By the order dated 19.01.1998, the said Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13943 of 1990 was dismissed by this Court. The order dated 19.01.1998 passed by this Court is as under:- "Hon'ble S.L.Saraf, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. I have gone though the petition and find that proper enquiry was held prior to termination of the services of the petitioner, as such, the services of the petitioner was rightly terminated. In that view of the matter, the writ petition stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.? 19.01.1998" It will thus be noticed that the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner on the same cause of action was dismissed by this Court by the order dated 19.01.1998. In the circumstances, the present Writ Petition being second Writ Petition on the same cause of action is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.