Held that a second writ petition challenging recovery proceedings after default in deposit is not maintainable regardless of subsequent partial compliance. Dismissed with liberty to approach previous Bench.
Writ petition dismissed; freedom to approach previous Bench for order.
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. - 2
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3736 of 2018
Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Niranjan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Petitioner :- Ved Prakash Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Krishna Mohan Asthana
Hon'ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J.
Heard counsel for petitioner, Sri Devesh Saxena holding brief of Sri K.M. Asthana, counsel for respondent and examined the record.
Admittedly, the petitioner has challenged the impugned recovery citation dated 11.8.2017 by way of Writ C No. 38835 of 2017 which was disposed of vide order dated 28.8.2017. The petitioner was required to deposit an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- by 28.10.2017 but he failed to deposit the aforesaid amount within time, thus, proceeding of recovery is now again proceeded against the petitioner. The second writ petition is not maintainable under Chapter 22 Rule 7 of Allahabad High Court Rules.
The counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was required to deposit first installment by 28.01.2018. The petitioner has deposited Rs. 4,30,000/before 28.01.2018, thus, he has made a substantial compliance of the order.
I have considered the arguments of counsel for the petitioner, it is for the Bench concerned to grant liberty to the petitioner or not. But the second writ petition is not maintainable.
This writ petition is dismissed with liberty to approach the previous Bench for appropriate order.
Order Date :- 30.1.2018 Siddhant Sahu
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a second writ petition filed after default in deposit is maintainable.
Whether substantial compliance by petitioner grants jurisdiction to high court to condone delay.
Pramod Kumar Niranjan
State Of U.P.
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya)
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
