Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 609 (ALL)

Mustaq Ahmed v. State of U. P.

2015-03-27

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, P.K.S.BAGHEL

body2015
JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J. The appellant, who was a Lekhpal, sought to challenge in a writ petition which was filed on 19 December 2014, an order of termination passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Akbarpur, Kanpur Dehat on 19 August 2006; the order in appeal passed by the Collector on 19 June 2007 and the order in revision dated 25 March 2011 passed by the Commissioner, Kanpur Division. 2. The appellant had, in 2011, filed an earlier writ petition (Writ-A No 73230 of 2011). Admittedly, the orders dated 19 August 2006, 19 June 2007 and 17 March 2011 were not questioned in the first writ petition. That writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge on 19 December 2011 in the following terms: "In the present case, petitioner has not at all questioned the validity of the decision dated 19.8.2006 as affirmed in Appeal on 19.6.2007 and affirmed in Revision on 17.3.2011. In pith and substance grievance of the petitioner is that whatever amount has been deducted from the salary prior to 2006 and for which he legally entitled for, qua the same directive be issued for payment. Consequently, District Magistrate, Rama Bai Nagar is directed to consider the request of the petitioner qua the amount which is he legally entitled for, in accordance with law, preferably within period of next three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. With these observations, writ petition is disposed of." 3. The appellant thereafter filed a second writ petition in 2014 seeking to question the order of termination and the orders passed in appeal and revision respectively. The second writ petition was held to be barred by the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 13 January 2015. 4. The learned Single Judge is clearly correct in the view which has been taken. When the appellant filed the first writ petition in 2011, the challenge to the order of termination and to the orders passed in appeal and revision was open but was not raised. The principle of constructive res judicata would apply and every ground of challenge which might and ought to have been raised in the first round of litigation would be barred in a subsequent writ petition. In the circumstances, the view of the learned Single Judge is not in error. 5. The principle of constructive res judicata would apply and every ground of challenge which might and ought to have been raised in the first round of litigation would be barred in a subsequent writ petition. In the circumstances, the view of the learned Single Judge is not in error. 5. We find no merit in the special appeal which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.