Dismissed

Ranveer Singh v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC25 Jul 2019WRIC/24046/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a second writ petition filed for identical reliefs sought in a pending petition (WP(C) No. 19337 of 2018) as an abuse of process. While counsels urged stern action, the court took a lenient view due to the petitioner's poverty and dismissed the petition without imposing exemplary costs.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. No exemplary costs were imposed on the petitioners, but they were advised to be more careful in future.

Ranveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 32

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24046 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Ranveer Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Chauhan

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Amrish Sahai,Rahul Sahai

¶5

Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Amrish Sahai, Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 5, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State and perused the record.

¶7

At the very outset, Sri Amrish Sahai, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 5 stated that it is a second writ petition for the same relief as the petitioners have already filed a Writ Petition (C) No. 19337 of 2018 (Ranveer Singh Vs. State of UP and 4 others) almost on identical set of facts, which is nothing but an abuse to the process of the Court, as such, this writ petition is liable to dismissed with heavy costs.

¶8

This writ petition, inter alia, has been filed for the following reliefs;

¶9

"1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to comply with the insurance scheme of crop loan issued by the Central Govt. and State Govt. and direction and guideline of RBI from time to time in favour of farmers.

¶10

2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents not to recovery

¶11

crop loan issued in Kisan credit card no. 125535110000411.

¶12

3. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents no. 3 S.D.M. Tehsil-Iglas, District Aligarh and their servant Collection Amin be restrained not to take any coercive action against the petitioner on the basis of demand notice of the concerned bank till the disposal of the C.M.W.P. No. 19337 of 2018 (Ranveer Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others.

¶13

4. Issue any other order or direction which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶14

5. Award the cost of writ petition to the petitioner."

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner produced a copy of the Writ Petition (C) No. 19337 of 2018 (Ranveer Singh Vs. State of UP and 4 others) which was earlier filed by him on behalf of the petitioners. The prayer made in the said petition is as follows:

¶16

¶17

2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to comply with the judgment dated 6.10.2015 passed in P.I.L. No. 26615 of 2015 (Bhartiya Majdoor Sangh Vs. Union of India and others).

¶18

3. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents not to recover crop loan issued in Kisan credit card no. 70172131007213.

¶19

4. Issue any other order or direction which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶20

5. Award the cost of writ petition to the petitioner."

¶21

A perusal of the prayers made in both the said writ petitions clearly indicates that the reliefs claimed in both the writ petitions are substantially similar. It may also be noted that in

¶22

the earlier Writ Petition (C) No. 19337 of 2018 (Ranveer Singh Vs. State of UP and 4 others) counter affidavit was called for by this Court and the same is still pending before this Court. Despite the fact that first writ petition is pending, the present writ petition has been filed more or less for the same reliefs.

¶23

Upon a query made to the learned counsel for the petitioners, he could not satisfy the Court as to why the second writ petition has been filed when already a writ petition is still pending before this Court seeking almost similar reliefs.

¶24

Learned Standing Counsel stated that filing of two writ petitions simultaneously for almost similar reliefs on behalf of the same petitioners is nothing but an abuse of the process of law, and, therefore, a stern action is liable to be taken against the erring person i.e. the petitioners. He further submits that by concealing the material fact the petitioners have approached this Court for the almost the same relief by filing the present writ petition, is nothing but an abuse of the process of court.

¶25

Filing of a writ petition petition concealing the material facts not only wastes the time of the Court but also amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. In order to sustain and maintain sanctity and solemnity of the proceedings in law courts, it is necessary that the parties should not make false or knowingly, inaccurate statements or misrepresentation and/or should not conceal material facts with a design to gain some advantage or benefit at the hands of the Court, when a Court is considered as a place where truth and justice are the solemn pursuits. It would be great public disaster if the fountain of justice is allowed to be poisoned by one resorting to filing

¶26

of false affidavit deliberately misleading the court. The theme of justice has to be kept clear and pure and any one soiling its purity must be dealt with sternly.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the petitioners are a very poor farmers and the mistake alleged to have been committed by the petitioners was not a deliberate one and instead of taking any stern action, a lenient view may be taken in the matter.

¶28

In view of what has been discussed herein above and considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the materials available on the record and also keeping in view the poor condition of the petitioners, we take a lenient view of the matter and refrain ourselves from imposing any exemplary cost upon the petitioners.

¶29

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the petitioners are advised to remain more careful in future.

¶30

Order Date :- 25.7.2019

¶31

vinay

Ranveer Singh v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranveer Singh v. State of U.P. and 5 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

Margoob Vs State of U.P. and Others

Pankaj Kumar Singh Vs Union of India and Another

Sanjay Saxena and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. and Others

Saraswati Devi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

New Metro Hospital and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shamim Vs State of U.P. and Another