This court dismissed a review application challenging an order dismissing a writ petition on the grounds of it not being pressed, noting the absence of merit in the challenge.
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. - 24
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 142 of 2022
Applicant :- Yogesh Prasad (In Wria 3799 Of 2022) Opposite Party :- U.O.I. Thru.Secy. Information And Technology And Deptt. Of Broadcasting And I.T.,New Delhi And Ors.
Counsel for Applicant :- Tauqueer Alam Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.S.G.I.,Dwijendra Mishra
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
Heard Sri Tauqueer Alam, learned counsel for the applicant through video conferencing.
The instant applicant has been filed seeking review of the order dated 15.06.2022 whereby the applicant-petitioner's Writ Petition bearing Writ A No. 3799 of 2022 has been dismissed as not pressed on the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner himself.
The order records a preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the applicant-petitioner had earlier filed a Writ A No. 2253 of 2022 which had been dismissed for want of prosecution on 20.05.2022 and the instant writ petition was the second writ petition filed for the same relief as it was barred by the Chapter XXII, Rule VII of the Allahabad High Court Rules.
The order further records that when the learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner was confronted with the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the opposite parties, the learned counsel for the petitioner had made a statement that he did not want to press the writ petition and it may be dismissed as not pressed.
The learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid objection raised on behalf of the opposite parties was wrong as the prayers in both the writ petitions are not the same.
The prayer made in the Writ A No. 2253 of 2022 is as follows:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite parties to get open the lock in the rented house of the petitioner in which the petitioner was living forthwith, in the interest of justice.
(ii) Issue any other writ, order or direction in the nature which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.
(iii) Allow the writ petition with costs in favour of the petitioner."
The prayer made in the Writ A No. 3799 of 2022 is as follows:-
"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding to the opposite parties to decide the decide the matter accordance order dated 19.11.2019 Manav Sansadhan Paripatra Sankya2154 dated 19.11.2019 and reduce the house rent accordance order dated 19.11.2019 in the interest of justice.
Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing to opposite parties do not disturb from the rental house in the interest of justice.
ii. Issue any other order or direction which this Hon'ble court may deem fit just and proper under the circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.
iii. Allow the writ petition of the petitioner with costs."
A perusal of the aforesaid prayers made in both the writ petitions indicates that in substance the reliefs sought by the petitioner in Writ A No. 2253 of 2022 was also concerning possession of the petitioner over the house in question and the prayer made in the subsequent writ petition is also to the same effect.
Be that as it may, it is apparent on the face of the record that the order dated 15.06.2022 was passed on the statement given by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he did not want to press the writ petition and the writ petition was accordingly dismissed as not pressed without deciding any controversy.
I find no error in the order dated 15.06.2022 which was passed on the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner himself that he did not want to press the writ petition. The instant review application lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed .
Order Date :- 16.7.2022 Jaswant
Digitally signed by JASWANT KUMAR Date: 2022.07.16 17:12:59 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the review application deserved consideration given the petitioner's voluntary admission of not pressing the writ petition.
Yogesh Prasad
U.O.I. Thru.Secy. Information And Technology And Deptt. Of Broadcasting And I.T.
Subhash Vidyarthi
Jaswant Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
