Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 629 (ALL)

ANIL KUMAR MISHRA v. STATE OF U. P.

2017-02-27

B.AMIT STHALEKAR

body2017
JUDGMENT Hon’ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J.—Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Subham Agrawal holding brief of Sri Avneesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and Sri J.S. Bundela, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 2. The relief claimed in the writ petition reads as under: “A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 3 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 6.1.2017 (Annexure 9 of the writ petition). B. Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case. C. Award the cost of the petition to the petition.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in Special Appeal No. 359 of 2015 (Rakesh Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 11 Others) a direction had been given by the Division Bench of this Court on 28.5.2015 permitting the petitioners to raise all such legal and factual objections in the matter of consideration of respondents-appellants for regular promotion before the Commission, which shall examine the eligibility of Supervisors like the appellants to be considered for promotion. 4. In the present writ petition simply from the relief claimed it is not clear as to exactly what relief the petitioner wants. His only prayer is to decide his representation dated 6.1.2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s right to prefer a representation before the respondents flows from Article 350 of the Constitution of India. Article 350 reads as under: “350. Language to be used in representations for redress of grievance.—Every person shall be entitled to submit a representation for the redress of any grievance to any officer or authority of the Union or a State in any of the languages used in the Union or in the State, as the case may be.” 5. This Article only regulates the language, which may be used in making representation by persons for redressal of grievance to any office or authority of the Union or a State and that such representation may be made in any language. Article 350 of the Constitution is only “permissive legislation” and does not mandate that a representation is maintainable if the statute otherwise does not specifically provide for the making of a representation. Article 350 of the Constitution is only “permissive legislation” and does not mandate that a representation is maintainable if the statute otherwise does not specifically provide for the making of a representation. No Act or Rule or Government Order has been shown to the Court to demonstrate that the right to representation is a statutory right conferring upon the respondent Government a corresponding statutory obligation to decide such representation. No one disputes the provisions of Article 350 of the Constitution so far as the language of a representation is concerned but in my opinion, the writ petition must necessarily spell out the relief claimed, so that the Court may be able to appreciate as to whether it is a case for counter-affidavit or for giving a direction to decide the representation of the petitioner. Likewise the actual relief may even be barred by laches or principles of res judicata. There is another mischief against which the Court must be wary and watchful where a petitioner may file successive writ petitions without spelling out the relief claimed in the previous writ petitions. 6. For reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed.