This court held that a writ petition seeking the same relief as a previous petition is not maintainable as a second petition for the same cause of action is barred, and accordingly dismissed the writ petition.
None granted.
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. - 32
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24892 of 2019 Petitioner :- Mohammad Ashraf Ahmad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ved Prakash Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
The writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs :-
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondent no.4 and 5 to vacate the room and hand over the peaceful possession to the petitioner.
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent no.2 and 3 to decide the application of petitioner dated 14.11.2017 and 1.8.2017 and disposed of the same within a time bound period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court."
A perusal of the record shows that earlier the petitioner had approached this Court by way of filing Writ Petition (C) No.17953 of 2014 for the identical relief wherein this Court, vide order dated 15.4.2014, had passed the following order, quoted hereinafter :-
"The allegation involves verification of various factual aspects with respect to claim of the petitioner over property and with respect to alleged unauthorized entry into the said property by the Respondents No.4 & 5 by using their official position. Since the allegation is that the Respondents No.4 & 5 have used their official position to occupy the premises we find it more appropriate that Superintendent of Police, Amroha, District J.P. Nagar should address the grievance of the petitioner and inquire whether the Respondents No.4 & 5 by using their official position have forcefully occupied the premises in question. In case it is found that the Respondents No.4 & 5 have used their official position to occupy the premises forcibly or unauthorizedly, necessary remedial action be taken by the Superintendent of Police, Amroha, District J.P. Nagar as expeditiously as possible by passing the reasoned order on the application of the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order by him.
We make it clear that we have not addressed the merits of the claim of the petitioner in this order and the grievance of the petitioner regarding unauthorized occupation by the Respondents No.4 & 5 by using their official position is to be addressed by the Superintendent of Police, Amroha, District J.P. Nagar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner may file a certified copy of this order
alongwith application before the Superintendent of Police, Amroha, District J.P. Nagar within a week from today.
The writ petition is disposed of.
No order is passed as to costs. "
Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that despite the order having been passed by this Court with a direction to pass a reasoned order in this matter, but till date, no action has been taken by the authority concerned.
The present writ petition of the petitioner is a second petition for the same cause of action. It is settled law that no one has a right to file successive writ petitions for the same cause of action.
In view of the above, we are of the opinion that this writ petition is not maintainable.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .
However, in case, the order passed by this Court is not being complied with by the authorities concerned, it is open for the petitioner to take contempt proceedings, if so advised, in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019 Rishabh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition filed for the same relief as a prior petition is maintainable.
Mohammad Ashraf Ahmad
State Of U.P.
Shashi Kant Gupta
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
