Dismissed

Adarsh Nigam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko and 4 Others

Allahabad HC12 Sept 2024WRIC/7913/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed two writ petitions involving Adarsh Nigam and Indu Nigam. The Court found that the petitions were filed at the instance of the same counsel who concealed material facts regarding prior petitions and misrepresented the status of related proceedings, violating the duty of an officer of the Court.

What did the court decide?

Both writ petitions dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,000/- each payable to the Mediation and Conciliation Center.

Adarsh Nigam vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:63134

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7913 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Adarsh Nigam Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Awaneesh Yadav,Sanjeet Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey

¶5

And

¶6

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6870 of 2024

¶7

Petitioner :- Indu Nigam Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjeet Kumar Srivastava,Awaneesh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey

¶8

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶9

Heard Sri Awaneesh Yadav learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of State respondent has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.5-Gaon Sabha.

¶10

Under challenge is the order dated 22.11.2023 passed by S.D.M Tehsil Sadar Lucknow whereby the suit preferred by the petitioner under Section 134 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been dismissed for want of prosecution.

¶11

At the outset, a specific query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how the instant petition would be maintainable against the order dated 22.11.2023 by which the proceedings were dismissed in default and whether the petitioner has any adequate statutory remedy against the said order.

¶12

In response, counsel for the petitioner submits that the said order is an outcome of undue influence exerted by certain MLA and in such pressure the S.D.M concerned has passed the order. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not confirm as to whether the petitioner could have filed an application for recall or file a revision against the said order.

¶13

However, then he stated that the petitioner does have a remedy of filing an application for recall and may be in a befitting case a revision can also be filed.

¶14

After making his submissions at some length he also submits that another petition in the same set of facts is already engaging attention of the Court and he further indicated that the said matter is listed before this Court today at Serial no.411 of the additional cause list. It is in this context that the Court has taken up the petition bearing Writ C no.6870 of 2024 (Indu Nigam vs State of U.P. and ors) along with the instant petition.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the said petition bearing Writ C no.6870 of 2024 was filed by the mother of the petitioner whereby her case under Section 134 of the U.P. Revenue 2006 was dismissed by the S.D.M.

¶16

Upon perusal of the material on record, the fresh petition listed today i.e. Writ C no.7913 of 2024 only refers to an order dated 09.08.2024 passed earlier in a petition preferred by the petitioner himself Adarsh Nigam bearing Writ C no.6865 of 2024 whereby he had sought the leave of the Court for filing a fresh petition with proper parties. However, what is the relevant to notice is that in the instant petition which is taken up in the fresh list today, there is no mention of the fact that the mother of the petitioner had filed an earlier petition in respect of the same land-in-question and against the order whereby in similar circumstances the suit of the mother-Indu Nigam was dismissed vide order dated 12.12.2023.

¶17

From a perusal of the order sheet of the Writ C no.6870 of 2024, it indicates that the matter came up before the Court on 09.08.2024 and the said petition was also filed by the same counsel who has filed the petition bearing Writ no.7913 of 2024 and on the said date Writ C no.6870 of 2024 was adjourned at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner i.e. 09.08.2024 which is the very same date when the petitioner had withdrawn his petition filed on behalf of Adarsh Nigam seeking liberty to file fresh.

¶18

This fact was neither disclosed in the petition no.6870 of 2024 that the son i.e. Adarsh Nigam had also filed a petition Writ C no.6865 of 2024 which has been withdrawn with liberty to file fresh on the very same date i.e. 09.08.2024. When Writ C no.6870 of 2024 was taken up on 14.08.2024, again the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is another petition which has been filed with identical facts and he requires time to prepare the same hence, the matter was listed on 12.09.2024 i.e. today and it is in the aforesaid backdrop, that the fresh petition

¶19

has been listed at Serial no.19 of the fresh list while the earlier petition filed by the mother i.e. Writ C no.6870 of 2024 is listed at serial no.411 of the additional cause list.

¶20

The Court in the aforesaid context has seen the pleadings as well as the facts of both the petitions before it. The record further indicates that Adarsh Nigam had first file Writ C No.6865 of 2024 which was dismissed with liberty to file fresh by means of the order dated 09.08.2024. In so far as the petition filed by the mother namely Indu Nigam is concerned bearing Writ C no.6870 of 2024, the same was filed on 08.07.2024 and on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner the said petition was directed to be listed in the next week as fresh. The said Writ C no.6870 of 2024 was again listed on 14.08.2024 on which date learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is another petition with identical facts has been filed hence he required time to prepare the matter better hence the petition was directed to be listed on 12.09.2024.

¶21

Since learned counsel in the two petitions are one and the same hence, when the counsel had given his statement on 14.08.2024 that another petition with identical facts has been filed and he required more time to prepare the matter, this statement apparently was incorrect in as much as on 14.08.2024, no other petitions except Writ C no.6870 of 2024 was pending. The earlier petition of Adarsh Nigam as noticed above had already been withdrawn with liberty to file fresh vide order dated 09.08.2024. Hence, the statement of the counsel for the petitioner was incorrect and the second petition of Adarsh Nigam was filed on 09.09.2024.

¶22

Considering the aforesaid fact, apparently, there is concealment on behalf of the petitioner. It is another thing that merely two petitions could have been filed by the petitioner and they may be related as mother and son but what is the most distressing to the fact that the both the petitions including the earlier petition which was withdrawn on behalf of Adarsh Nigam i.e. in writ petition no.6865 of 2024 had been filed by the same counsel. Before the counsel takes up plea and represents the case of his client, he is first an officer of the Court it is most unfortunate that the learned counsel for the petitioner has violated the trust which is not expected.

¶23

Since the petitioners have an adequate remedy of filing either the application for recall or revision in terms of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 as may be applicable to either of the petitions, they shall be at liberty to exercise the said right, however, this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not inclined to entertain the

¶24

both petitions which suffer from concealment of material fact and misrepresentation. Hence, both the writ petitions are dismissed with the cost of Rs.1,000/- each which has to be deposited before the Mediation and Conciliation Center of this Court within a period of ten days.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner after the order was dictated in an open Court submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the petition, his request is turned down.

¶26

Order Date :- 12.9.2024 Harshita

¶27

Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Adarsh Nigam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adarsh Nigam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Yogesh Kumar Vs Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow Thru. Member and Others

Parsnath @ Parsnath Udayaraj Chauhan Vs Sub District Magistrate (Judicial), Tehsil Jalalpur, Ambedkar Nagar and Ors.

Abhay Khare Vs Estate of Late Shri Ram Prakash and Others

Mukeem Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ashok Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Saiyad Ali Ahamar and Another vs Raident Academic Improvement Society, Hardoi and Another