Mukhtar Ahmed vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1592 of 2026

Mukhtar Ahmed

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mahendra Pal Chauhan Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶7

Court No. - 8

¶8

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶9

Heard Sri M.P Chauhan learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rahul Shukla learned Additional Chief Standing counsel for the State respondent.

¶10

At the outset, an objection has been raised by the learned Additional Chief Standing counsel that the petition suffers from concealment of fact. It is urged that the petitioner had earlier filed a petition before the Division Bench of this Court by means of Writ C no.11929 of 2025 wherein the petition was dismissed as the petitioner had withdrawn with liberty to approach the civil court for redressal of his grievance.

¶11

It is urged that in the instant petition, the filing of the earlier petition has been concealed apart from the fact that the prayer which has been made also cannot be granted as the petition is premature.

¶12

A specific query was put to the counsel for the petitioner regarding the filing of the earlier petition, to which, he did not dispute for the reason that he was very same counsel who filed the petition, however, what he submits is that the earlier petition was for a different cause of action and the instant petition is for a different prayer altogether and, therefore, there was no relevance to disclose the filing of the earlier petition.

¶13

Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from a perusal of the material on record, it appears that the instant petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming the following reliefs which reads as under:

¶14

"(i) Issue order or direction the respondent no.2/District Magistrate, Bahraich or

¶15

A227 No. 1592 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

competent authority to decide the application dated 02.03.2026 of the petitioner filed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 within a fixed time period."

¶18

(i) Nowhere in the petition, it has been disclosed that the petitioner had earlier filed writ petition. (ii) On the contrary, the ground for seeking expedition of the proceedings as indicated in this petition has been mentioned in para-5 indicating that the petitioner has entered in an agreement to sell with the respondent no.4 and the petitioner paid a substantial amount. Since, the respondent no.4 is refusing to execute the sale deed hence, he is receiving threats.

¶19

In the aforesaid backdrop, if the earlier writ petition filed by the same petitioner bearing Writ C No.11929 of 2025 is seen, it would indicate that the petitioner had claimed the following reliefs:

¶20

" (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite parties no.2 to protect life and property of the petitioner in light of the Act Section 22(2) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 /Rule 21 (2) Uttar Pradesh Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules 2014 and restrain the opposite party no.2 from making the illegal harassment of the petitioner and take appropriate action against the illegal act of the opposite party no.2 by not executing the sale deed or returning huge amount of the petitioner in the interest of justice.

¶21

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite parties no.2 to take appropriate action on the representations dated 26.11.2025 made by the petitioner contained in Annexure No.1 to this writ petition within a period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice."

¶22

Considering the aforesaid circumstances certain facts which could not be disputed is the fact that the petitioner himself had filed a petition before the Division Bench and the same was dismissed and the relevant order passed by the Division Bench dated 19.12.2025 is being reproduced hereinafter for ready reference:

¶23

"1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, upon reconsideration, submits that the present writ petition may be dismissed with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the civil court for redressal of his grievances.

¶24

2. In light of the above submissions made, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for. "

¶25

A227 No. 1592 of 2026

¶26

3

¶27

Another fact that could not be disputed that the cause of action as indicated in paras-5 and 6 of the instant petition was the subject matter of cause of action for the earlier petition preferred before the Division Bench.

¶28

Admittedly, the petitioner had sought the liberty to approach the civil court which has not been done rather the petitioner has filed a petition under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 on 02nd March, 2026 and as per the stipulation contained in the Act itself, a period of 90 days is prescribed which admittedly has yet not lapsed, therefore, from this point of view, it cannot be said that the authorities have delayed the proceedings.

¶29

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find that the petitioner has approached this Court with clean hands accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

¶30

It is made clear that in case, if any cause of action arises in future for expeditious disposal of the petition then per se this order may not come in the way of the petitioner.

¶31

April 7, 2026 Harshita

¶32

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶33

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

Mukhtar Ahmed v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukhtar Ahmed v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Parvati Devi vs Hridayesh Kumar and Another

Rajneesh Pratap Singh vs Prinicipal Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Krishna Dev Pandey Alias Krishna Dev vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 10 Others

Usha Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Food and Civil Supply Civil Sectt. Lko. and 2 Others

Maqbool Ahmad vs the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Panchayati Raj Lko. and 6 Others

Ramjee Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko and 4 Others