This court rejected the petitioner's argument that a fresh writ petition permitted under rules should be treated as an amendment application. The court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable and directed the petitioner to file the appropriate application in the earlier writ.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 16
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14438 of 2018
Petitioner :- Amar Kumar Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhupendra Nath Singh,Pramendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jai Bahadur Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Heard Shri Bhupendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri C.B.Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent.
Shri B.N.Singh says that this Court had permitted the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition vide its order dated 18.05.2018 passed in Writ-A No. 821 of 2015 (Amar Kumar Pandey vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others). The order passed by this Court on 18.05.2018 in the aforesaid writ petition is being quoted herein below :-
"Shri C.B.Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents points out that the petitioner's claim for payment of pension and other retiral dues have already been rejected by order dated 24.03.2017, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-2 to the supplementary affidavit dated 23.04.2018.
Shri B.N.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that he may be permitted to file appropriate amendment application challenging the order dated 24.03.2017.
As prayed two weeks' time is granted to the learned counsel for the petitioner to file an appropriate application.
List on 12th July, 2018."
It is apparent that from bare perusal of the language of the order that this Court had directed the counsel for the petitioner to file appropriate amendment application challenging the order dated 24.03.2017 as that was the prayer made by the petitioner before the Court on 18.05.2018.
It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since this Court had permitted to file "an appropriate application", the second writ petition is also
an application and it should be treated as such under the Rules of the Court.
This Court finds the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner as misconceived and liable to be rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner did not file any modification/recall application in the earlier writ petition praying for modification/recall of the order dated 18.05.2018. This Court had given the petitioner liberty in terms of the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner. This liberty cannot be misinterpreted to file a fresh writ petition and then argue that the fresh writ petition had been permitted to be filed by this Court. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a fresh cause of action has arisen with regard to the order dated 24.03.2017 and, therefore, a fresh writ petition had been filed and there was no necessity to move any amendment application in the earlier writ petition.
If that be so, then the petitioner should have been advised to move appropriate amendment/recall application in the earlier writ petition.
This Court, therefore, rejects the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to fresh cause of action.
The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
It shall be open for the petitioner to move appropriate application as directed by the Court vide order dated 18.05.2018.
Order Date :- 20.7.2018 VR
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a fresh writ petition can be inadvertently treated as an appropriate amendment application permitted by a prior order under the court rules.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to file a fresh writ petition based on a fresh cause of action arising from an order dated 24.03.2017.
Whether the contention that a fresh writ petition was permitted under rules is maintainable without a modification application in the earlier petition.
Amar Kumar Pandey
State Of U.P.
2 Others
Sangeeta Chandra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
