Dismissed

Smt. Anupam Kumari v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2018WRIA/39643/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the impleadment of Smt. Shakuntala as respondent no.7. In a second matter, the judgment dismissed a second writ petition filed on the same cause of action, quashing it due to the petitioner's failure to disclose the first petition and filing a false affidavit.

What did the court decide?

The second writ petition was dismissed. The interim order stands discharged. Smt. Shakuntala was added as respondent no.7 in the first writ petition.

Smt. Anupam Kumari Vs State of U.P. and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Civil Misc. Impleadment Application No.240951 of 2010 In Case :- WRIT - A No. - 39643 of 2009 Petitioner :- Smt. Anupam Kumari Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,P.P.Chaudhary,V.D.Agarwal Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. Heard Sri V. D. Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant. The application of Smt. Shakuntala to be amended as respondent no.7 is allowed.

¶3

It is directed that Smt. Shakuntala shall be arrayed as respondent no.7. The amendment has to be carried out forthwith by Sri V. D. Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant, who has filed impleadment application.

¶4

Order Date :- 25.9.2018 Pramod

¶5

Court No. - 28

¶6

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 39643 of 2009 Petitioner :- Smt. Anupam Kumari Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,P.P.Chaudhary,V.D.Agarwal

¶7

With

¶8

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15710 of 2009 Petitioner :- Smt. Anupam Kumari Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶9

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶10

The matter was taken up in the revised call. None appears for the petitioner. The name of counsel for the petitioner is shown in the cause list. Learned Standing Counsel is present on behalf of State.

¶11

Sri V. D. Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent no.7, who has filed an impleadment application and claims to be the validly selected candidate for the post of Anganwari Karya Katri submits that the instant writ petition is a second writ petition. The first writ petition was filed by the petitioner on the same cause of action which was registered as C. M. Writ Petition No.15710 of 2009, Smt. Anupam Kumari Vs. State of U.P. and others, seeking following reliefs:-

¶12

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction:

¶13

(i) in the nature of Certiorari by quashing the impugned order dated 24.2.2009 (Annexure-10) passed by respondent no.4.

¶14

(ii) in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing respondents not to interfere in working and functioning of the petitioner on the post of 'Aaganbadi Karyakatri', during the pendency of this writ petition before this Hon'ble Court;"

¶15

Subsequently the petitioner filed another writ petition, which was registered as C. M. Writ Petition No.39643 of 2009, Smt. Anupam Kumari Vs. State of U.P. and others, seeking the same relief. The relief is extracted hereunder:-

¶16

"(I) Issue, a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 29.5.2009 (Annexure no.13) and the order dated 24.2.2009 (Annexure no.11) passed by the respondent no.4 and 2.

¶17

(II) Issue, a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents not to restrain the petitioner from discharging her duties as Shiksha Mitra, in Anganwari Kendra Barasamaspur, Etah."

¶18

The second writ petition on the same cause of action was registered as C. M. Writ Petition No.39643 of 2009, Smt. Anupam Kumari Vs. State of U.P. and others. The petitioner failed to disclose the fact of the first writ petition in the second writ petition, which was registered as C. M. Writ Petition No.39643 of 2009, Smt. Anupam Kumari Vs. State of U.P. and others. On the contrary the petitioner has made the following assertions in paragraph 1 of the C. M. Writ Petition No.39643 of 2009, Smt. Anupam Kumari Vs. State of U.P. and others:-

¶19

"1. That this is the first writ petition on behalf of the petitioner before this Hon'ble Court in respect to the

¶20

reliefs sought. The petitioner has not filed any other writ petition earlier either before this Hon'ble court or at Lucknow Bench."

¶21

The appointment of the petitioner was directly or substantially an issue in C. M. Writ Petition No.15710 of 2009, Smt. Anupam Kumari Vs. State of U.P. and others.

¶22

During the pendency of the said writ petition the petitioner made a representation to the respondent authorities in regard to the validity of her appointment. The representation was rejected by order dated 24.5.2009 passed by District Magistrate, Etah.

¶23

The order dated 24.5.2009 passed by the District Magistrate, Etah was assailed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.39643 of 2009 instituted by the petitioner. An interim order was granted in the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.39643 of 2009.

¶24

A withdrawal application in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.15710 of 2009 has been filed on the ground that the order dated 24.2.2009 has become infructuous in view of the subsequent order passed by the District Magistrate, Etah, on 29.5.2009. A perusal of the withdrawal application shows that the intent of the petitioner was to over-reaching the court. The petitioner created a artificial cause of action on the foot of which the second writ petition was instituted. Essentially the second writ petition was on the same cause of action, which was engaging the attention of this court in the first writ petition.

¶25

The affidavit does not show any remorse for filing a second writ petition.

¶26

The intent of the petitioner to over-reach this court is established by the tenor of the withdrawal application. The petitioner made a false affidavit. The averment in the relevant paragraph in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.39643 of 2009, extracted above is false. The petitioner has not come to the court with the clean hands. She is not entitled to any discretionary relief from this court. The petitioner has filed a false affidavit and has shown no remorse for the same. The second writ petition on the same cause of action is not maintainable.

¶27

Both the writ petitions are dismissed. The interim order stands discharged.

¶28

Order Date :- 25.9.2018 Pramod

Smt. Anupam Kumari v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Anupam Kumari v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Mandvi Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Shamsuzzuha Vs State of U.P. and Others

Nigmeshwar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru Special Secy. and Others

Ram Surat Vs State of U.P. and Others

Shailesh Kumar Pal Vs State of U.P. and Others

Shamsheer Khyan Vs State of U.P. Thru Chief Secy. U.P. and Others