# Deepak Chowrasia v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 817
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-15
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 20558 of 2024
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/deepak-chowrasia-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52760
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

orders issued under Sections 148, 148A(d) and
147 of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment
Year 2017-18. The main issue was whether a
petitioner can invoke writ jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash
an assessment order while simultaneously
pursuing a statutory rectification application for
the same order without disclosing that fact to
the Court.

Headnotes
A.
Civil
matter-
Constitution
of
India,1950-Article 226-Income Tax Act,
1961-Sections
148,
148A(d),
147-
Doctrine of Election-Failure to disclose the
filing
of
a
statutory
rectification
application amounts to a suppression of
material facts-Once a petitioner elects a
specific statutory remedy(rectification),
they are precluded from pursuing an
alternative remedy (writ petition) for the
same cause of action-Hence, dismissed.
Held
The court found that the petitioner had
suppressed the fact of filing the rectification
application agains

## Text

11 All. Deepak Chowrasia Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
817
undertakings
and
the
Court
cannot
interfere lightly. Granting of certain
benefits may result in a cascading effect
having adverse financial consequences.

10.5 In the present case, WALMI
being an autonomous body, registered
under the Societies Registration Act, the
employees of WALMI are governed by their
own Service Rules and conditions, which
specifically do not provide for any
pensionary benefits; the Governing Council
of WALMI has adopted the Maharashtra
Civil Services Rules except the Pension
Rules. Therefore, as such a conscious
policy decision has been taken not to
adopt the Pension Rules applicable to the
State Government employees; that the
State Government has taken such a policy
decision in the year 2005 not to extend
the pensionary benefits to the employees
of
the
aided
institutes,
boards,
corporations etc.; and the proposal of the
then Director of WALMI to extend the
pensionary benefits to the employees of
WALMI has been specifically turned
down
by
the
State
Government.
Considering the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, the High Court is not
justified in directing the State to extend
the pensionary benefits to the employees
of WALMI, which is an independent
autonomous entity."

14. The aforesaid judgment is also
against the case of petitioners. In aforesaid
circumstances, there is no ground to
interfere with impugned order. The writ
petition is accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 817
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.11.2025

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ - A No. 20558 of 2024

Deepak Chowrasia ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
In Person

Counsel for the Respondent:
Shambhavi Tiwari, C.S.C., Rohit Pandey

Issue for Consideration
The circumstances, when the costs can be
imposed upon the petitioner-in-person for filing
the defective writ petition.
Headnotes
(A) Service law - Post of Lecturer in
University - Contractual appointment -
Defective Writ Petition was filed -
Selected
candidates
were
not
impleaded - Petitioner sought prayer
for quashing the order, which was in his
favour - Petitioner was appearing in
person - Permissibility - Since the
petitioner
was
acting
against
his
interest, the court advised him to take
assistance of Amicus Curaie, but the
same was refused by the petitioner -
Costs, when can be imposed :

Held : There is no bar for petitioner in
person to file a petition and to argue their
case. In some case they argue better than
any qualified Advocate, but it is an exception
- A reference of G.O. by petitioner in person
would not help him since it has no statutory
backup otherwise a contractual appointee
has no indefeasible right for extension
specifically when regular appointments are
already been made - Court cannot help such
writ petitioner appearing in person on basis
of defective writ petition, making prayers
contrary to law, accordingly, this writ
petition
is
dismissed,
with
a
cost
of
Rs.5000/- to be deposited by the petitioner
in person in the District Legal Services
Authority, Kanpur Nagar. [Paras 4, 8 and 10]
(E- 1)
818 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Keywords
Petitioner in person; Defective writ petition;
Amicus
Curaie;
Contractual
appointment;
Selection
Committee;
Recruitment
process;
Statutory backup; Regular appointment.

Case Arising From
Selection process for the post of Lecturer in
University.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner : In person.
Advs. For the Respondent : Rohit Pandey

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

 1. Heard Sri Deepak Chowrasia,
petitioner in person and Sri Rohit
Pandey on behalf of respondents.

2.
Court
is
repeatedly
facing
difficulty in dealing cases of petitioners
appearing in person since their writ
petitions invariably remains defective.
Even averments made therein are not
proper, since they are unaware of law
and procedure and normally they refuse
to take services of an Amicus Curaie.

3. Due to lack of proper assistance
even though Court gave patient hearing,
interest of justice suffers.

4. It is necessary to observe that
there is no bar for petitioner in person
to file a petition and to argue their case.
In some case they argue better than any
qualified
Advocate,
but
it
is
an
exception.

5. The present case is also an
example of such defective writ petition.
On one hand petitioner wants to quash
an
order,
whereby his
contractual
appointment was extended, thus acting
against his own interest and on other
hand after participating in a selection
process when he remained unsuccessful,
has
challenged
selection
of
other
persons
without
even
impleading
them.Thus writ petition is defective.
Petitioner
has
arrayed
'Selection
Committee' as one of the respondent,
which is also a defect.

6. This writ petition is pending
since 2024 and at the outset when this
Court requested the petitioner appearing
in person to appoint an Amicus Curaie,
he bluntly refused.

7. Court also takes note of a
submission of learned counsel for the
University that presently there is no
contractual
appointment
in
the
University on the post of Lecturer and
are
appointed
through
a
proper
recruitment process.

8. A reference of G.O. by petitioner
in person would not help him since it
has no statutory backup otherwise a
contractual
appointee
has
no
indefeasible
right
for
extension
specifically when regular appointments
are already been made.

9.Reference of many judgments in
Writ Petition does not make a case
better, if facts are against.

10. Court cannot help such writ
petitioner appearing in person on basis
of defective writ petition, making
prayers contrary to law, accordingly,
this writ petition is dismissed, with a
cost of Rs.5000/- to be deposited by
the petitioner in person in the District
Legal
Services
Authority,
Kanpur
Nagar.
----------
11 All. Anand Kumar Verma Vs. Prin. Commissioner of Income Tax Allahabad & Ors.
819
(2025) 11 ILRA 819
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

Writ - C No. 1270 of 2025

Anand Kumar Verma ...Petitioner
Versus
Prin.
Commissioner
of
Income
Tax
Allahabad & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Alok Kumar Gupta, Pradeep Agrawal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Kushagra Dixit

Issue for Consideration
The petitioner sought to quash notices and
orders issued under Sections 148, 148A(d) and
147 of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment
Year 2017-18. The main issue was whether a
petitioner can invoke writ jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash
an assessment order while simultaneously
pursuing a statutory rectification application for
the same order without disclosing that fact to
the Court.

Headnotes
A.
Civil
matter-
Constitution
of
India,1950-Article 226-Income Tax Act,
1961-Sections
148,
148A(d),
147-
Doctrine of Election-Failure to disclose the
filing
of
a
statutory
rectification
application amounts to a suppression of
material facts-Once a petitioner elects a
specific statutory remedy(rectification),
they are precluded from pursuing an
alternative remedy (writ petition) for the
same cause of action-Hence, dismissed.
Held
The court found that the petitioner had
suppressed the fact of filing the rectification
application against the order passed under
section 147 of the Income Tax Act. If the
petitioner suppresses the facts that would
influence the court's discretion, the court is
duty-bound to refuse relief.(Para 5 to 10) (E-6)

Case Law Cited
M/s S. J.S. Business Enterprises Private Ltd. Vs.
State of Bihar, (2004) 7 SCC 166, Bhriguram De
Vs. State of West Bengal, (2019) 1 CHN(Cal.)
598,

Rex
Vs.
Kensington
Income
Tax
Commissioners (1917) 1 KB 486, Rajasthan
State Industrial Development & Investment
Corpn. Vs. Diamond & Gem Development Cropn.
Ltd. (2013) 5 SCC 470.-referred to.

List of Acts
Constitution of India,1950, Income Tax Act,
1961

List of Keywords
Suppression of facts, doctrine of election,
approbate
and
reprobate,
rectification
application, clean hands, Uberrima fides.

Case Arising From
Civil Jurisdiction: WRIT TAX No. -1270 OF 2025
Anand
Kumar
Verma
Vs.
Prin.
Commissioner of Income Tax Allahabad
And 2 Others
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.11.
2025 of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Petitioner(s)
 Alok Kumar Gupta, Pradeep Agarwal
Adv. for Respondent(s)
 Kushagra Dikshit

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.
&
Hon'ble Manjive Shukla, J.)

1. Heard Shri Digvijay Mishra, learned
counsel for the petitioner and learned
Standing Counsel appearing for the Staterespondents.

2. The captioned writ petition has been
filed inter alia, praying therein for the
following reliefs:-