Dismissed¶34

Akshay Vardhan v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC26 Feb 2026WRIC/8080/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Abuse of process of law; successive writ petitions; same cause of action; maintainability objection; Article 226 of the Constitution; certiorari; mandamus; noise pollution; temple in colony park; Sapan Bagh Colony, Agra; Nagar Nigam Agra; State of U.P.; Writ-C No. 8080 of 2026; dismissal; impugned order dated 29.01.2026; application dated 13.11.2025; Writ-C No. 11003 of 2024; Writ No. 22613 of 2023; Writ-C No. 37982 of 2025; civil suit status quo.

What did the court decide?

Once the Court has already decided the matter on merits on 18.10.2024 in Writ Petition No. 11003 of 2023, the filing of successive writ petitions, moreover for the same cause of action, is an abuse of the process of law and such practice cannot be appreciated by the Court. ¶33

Akshay Vardhan vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 8080 of 2026

Akshay Vardhan

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 5 Others

¶7

	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Ankit Mishra, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Shyam Mani Shukla

¶8

Court No. - 21

¶9

HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

¶10

Heard Shri Shambhu Chopra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Ankit Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for State respondents and Shri Shyam Mani Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no.4-Nagar Nigam, Agra.

¶11

The instant writ petiton is preferred, inter alia, for the following reliefs:-

¶12

“ (I) Issue any other writ, order a direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 29.01.2026 passed by the respondent no.6 by which the application filed by the petitioner dated 13.11.2025 has been rejected.

¶13

(II) Issue any other writ, order a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to take appropriate action over the grievance of the petitioner and get ensured the density of noise near the houses of the petitioner as per standards fixed by government.”

¶14

At the outset, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel raised an objection qua the maintainability of the instant writ petition on the ground that the petitioner claiming himself to be the resident of Sapan Bagh Colony has earlier preferred Writ-C No.11003 of 2024 (Akshay Vardhan v. State of U.P. & Ors.) for a direction to the respondent authorities to restore the status of Sapan Bagh Park situated in Sapan Bagh Colony, Agra and to

¶15

WRIC No. 8080 of 2026

¶16

¶17

stop noise pollution being caused by a temple constructed in the park. In the said proceeding, the Division Bench had invited the objection from the respondent authority and after considering the claim and counter claim set up by the parties had dismissed the writ petition with detailed observations on 18.10.2024. For ready reference, the operative portion of the order dated 18.10.2024 is reproduced as under:-

¶18

"......11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶19

12. It is not disputed before us that the father of the petitioner has already instituted a civil suit against the residents of the colony in relation to the same park and has sought permanent prohibitory injunction against them. An order of status quo is still operating in the said suit. The said fact was a crucial fact and has an important bearing on the issue sought to be raised in the writ petition, but it has not been disclosed and thus dis-entitles the petitioner to any discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

¶20

13. Apart from it, we notice that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ No. 22613 of 2023. In the said writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner was in relation to construction of a temple in the park and also installation of cameras and loudspeakers allegedly resulting in breach of privacy and noise pollution. A coordinate Bench while disposing of the said writ petition by order dated 25.07.2023 observed that the issues raised involve disputed questions of fact and, therefore, writ petition was not an appropriate remedy. The petition was, therefore, disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the administrative authorities for redressal of his grievance. The present petition is in respect of same cause of action, i.e. alleged noise pollution and existence of temple in the park in respect of which, the Court, in previous writ petition, had declined to interfere.

¶21

14. Thirdly, the U.P. Pollution Control Board has already recommended to the District Magistrate to take appropriate action, in case of any noise pollution and for which the remedy is available before the authorities.

¶22

15. As the civil suit is already pending and therefore, it is always open to the petitioner and his father, who had instituted the suit to seek appropriate amendments therein and pray for such other reliefs, as may be advised.

¶23

16. Having regard to the discussions made above, the petition is dismissed."

¶24

In the aforementioned facts and circumstances, precise objection has been raised before us that instead of pressing the relief in the ongoing suit proceeding, the petitioner had again preferred Writ-C No.37982 of 2025 (Akshay Vardhan v. State of U.P. & Ors.), which was disposed of on 6.11.2025 with following observations:-

¶25

WRIC No. 8080 of 2026

¶26

¶27

"1. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

¶28

2. Grievance raised by the petitioner in application dated 29.09.2025 to be decided by the authorities concerned after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter, pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the application.

¶29

3. With the above direction, the petition is disposed of.

¶30

4. It is to be noted that in the event, any survey has been carried out with regard to the noise pollution in the particular premises, report of the same should be provided to the petitioner before an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner."

¶31

In response to the aforesaid order, the claim of the petitioner has been considered and rejected by the order impugned, hence the instant writ petition has been preferred with aforequoted reliefs.

¶32

Learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel, in this backdrop, submits that once the matter had been adjudicated by the Writ Court on merit, the filing of successive writ petitions for the same cause of action is misuse of the process of law. Instead of availing the opportunity before the competent civil court, moreover on the same premises, in the guise of the impugned order dated 29.01.2026, the petitioner has again invoked the writ jurisdiction by means of instant writ petition. In view of the judgment dated 18.10.2024 passed in Writ Petition No.11003 of 2023, whereby the writ petition was dismissed on merit, any such challenge, later on, cannot be accepted.

¶33

Considering the facts and circumstances as well as the categorical objection raised by learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel, we are of the opinion that once the Court has already decided the matter on merits on 18.10.2024 in Writ Petition No.11003 of 2023, the filing of successive writ petitions, moreover for the same cause of action, is an abuse of the process of law and such practice cannot be appreciated by the Court. As such, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter.

¶34

Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed.

¶35

(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) February 26, 2026 Pkb/

¶36

Digitally signed by :- PRAMOD KUMAR BAJPAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Akshay Vardhan v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akshay Vardhan v. State of U.P. and 5 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

Sh. Jaikaran and 3 Others Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Shambhu Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Indira Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nimi House Private Limited vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sh. Jaikaran and 3 Others vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Shambhu Singh Yadav vs State of U.P. and 3 Others