Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1148 (ALL)

Laiek Ahmad v. State of U. P.

2016-03-31

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, YASHWANT VARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT By an order dated 4 December 2014, the Zila Panchayat, Bijnor forfeited the security of the petitioner; ordered that in future the petitioner would not be entitled to renewal of his registration and directed the blacklisting of the petitioner. On 18 March 2015 responding to a representation of the petitioner dated 9 March 2015, the Additional Chief Officer while referring to the earlier decision informed the petitioner that his registration for 2015-16 could not be renewed. The petitioner filed the first writ petition (Writ Petition No.28462 of 2015) for challenging the communication dated 18 March 2015 and for a mandamus permitting him to participate in the tender proceedings. The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn in terms of the prayer made before the Court by a Division Bench on 28 May 2015 with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition challenging the order passed in December 2014 debarring the petitioner from appearing in any works contract of the Zila Panchayat, Bijnor. Thereafter, instead of challenging the order dated 4 December 2014, the petitioner filed the second writ petition (Writ Petition No.47453 of 2015) seeking to challenge once again the order dated 18 March 2015 and for permission to participate in the tender process. The second writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench on 24 August 2015. The Division Bench observed that the order dated 4 December 2014 was not under challenge in the writ petition and the petitioner had already filed a civil suit. Now a third writ petition has been filed seeking to challenge the order dated 4 December 2014. When the writ petition came up on 1 March 2016, the Division Bench directed the petitioner to furnish an explanation as to why the petitioner had not disclosed the filing of the earlier two writ petitions before this Court. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. There is absolutely no explanation for the non-disclosure of the filing of the earlier two writ petitions and the orders passed thereon. All that has been stated is that after the passing of the first order, the second respondent did not provide a copy of the order dated 4 December 2014. That is no valid explanation in law. There is absolutely no explanation for the non-disclosure of the filing of the earlier two writ petitions and the orders passed thereon. All that has been stated is that after the passing of the first order, the second respondent did not provide a copy of the order dated 4 December 2014. That is no valid explanation in law. The filing of the two earlier writ petitions was a material circumstance particularly the fact that the second writ petition has been dismissed on the ground that the order dated 4 December 2014 was not under challenge. The petitioner has thus clearly suppressed material facts which were in his knowledge. Moreover, the present writ petition cannot be entertained for the reason that the challenge to the order dated 4 December 2014 ought to have and could have been made in the second writ petition in terms of the liberty which was granted in the first writ petition. The petitioner not having done so, the present petition is not maintainable. The petition is hence dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.