# Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 3 ILRA 574
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-02-04
- **Case number:** Matter Under Article 227 No. 58596 of 2017
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal, Rajendra Kumar-Iv
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pradeep-kumar-dwivedi-v-union-of-india-ors-45135
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Constitution of India, 1950-Article
226-Petitioner
challenged
the
appointment-earlier he came to the
court in PIL -petitioner did not seek
any liberty to file a fresh writ petition
but made a statement that he may be
allowed to pursue appropriate remedy
for
redressal
of
his
grievanceappropriate
remedy
in
respect
of
decision of University is by invoking
jurisdiction of the Chancellor u/s 10 of
University of Allahabad Act, 2005Since,
earlier
petition
was
not
dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to
file second writ petition, this writ
petition for the same cause of action is
not maintainable.(Para 1 to 6)

The Petition is dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited: -

## Text

574 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

12. We are conscious of the fact that
this Court vide order dated 4.2.2021 passed in
Writ-C No. 23377 of 2020; Vinod Upadhyay
vs. State of U.P. and another has issued
directions to the opposite parties to complete
the reservation of constituencies latest by
17.3.2021 and thereupon complete the
elections of all the Panchayats by 30th April,
2021 and indirection elections to be
completed thereafter within fifteen days i.e.,
by 15th May, 2021.

13. It is submitted by the learned
Advocate General that the entire exercise for
providing reservation in the Panchayat
Elections has to be done a fresh taking 2015
as the base year, as such, it would not be
possible that the reservation of constituencies
to be finalized by 17.3.2021. It is stated that
they will complete the entire exercise in this
regard by 27.3.2021 and hold the elections by
10.5.2021.
Indirect
election
would
be
completed by 25.5.2021.

14. We have passed this order
considering the changed circumstances, with
the consent of parties' counsel and without
calling for counter affidavit as well as taking
note of the fact that Writ-C No. 23377 of
2020; Vinod Upadhyay vs. State of U.P. and
another has been disposed of vide order
dated 4.2.2021.

15. Considering the submissions of
learned Advocate General, the impugned
order dated 11.2.2021 is hereby quashed.
The writ petition is allowed.
----------
(2021)03ILR A574
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.03.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV, J.

Matter Under Article 227 No. 58596 of 2017

Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
In Person

Counsel for the Respondent:
A.S.G.I., Sri Ajeet Kumar Singh, Sri Jayant
Prakash Singh, Sri Neeraj Tripathi, Sri Vinod
Kumar Shukla

A. Constitution of India, 1950-Article
226-Petitioner
challenged
the
appointment-earlier he came to the
court in PIL -petitioner did not seek
any liberty to file a fresh writ petition
but made a statement that he may be
allowed to pursue appropriate remedy
for
redressal
of
his
grievanceappropriate
remedy
in
respect
of
decision of University is by invoking
jurisdiction of the Chancellor u/s 10 of
University of Allahabad Act, 2005Since,
earlier
petition
was
not
dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to
file second writ petition, this writ
petition for the same cause of action is
not maintainable.(Para 1 to 6)

The Petition is dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Sarguja Transport Service Vs S.T.A.T., (1987)
1 SCC 5

2. Mahendra & Ors. Vs St. of U.K. & anr. (2007)
10 SCC 158

3. Manubhai J. Patel Vs B.O.B., (2000) 10 SCC
253

4. U.O.I. Vs Ranbir Singh Rathaur,(2006) 11
SCC 696

5. Ishwar Dutt Vs Land Acquisition Collector,
(2005) AIR SC 3165
3 All. Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi Vs. Union of India & Ors.
575
(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
& Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV, J.)

1. Heard petitioner-Pradeep Kumar
Dwivedi, in person, and perused the record.

2. Petitioner, challenging appointment
of Respondent-6 earlier came to this Court
in Public Interest Litigation No. 55547 of
2017 which was dismissed as withdrawn
vide order dated 22.11.2017 as under:

"The petitioner in person prays for
withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty
to take appropriate remedy for redressal of
his grievance. Petition is accordingly
disposed of, as withdrawn, with liberty as
prayed."

3. Petitioner did not seek any liberty
to file a fresh writ petition but made a
statement that he may be allowed to pursue
appropriate remedy for redressal of his
grievance. Appropriate remedy in respect
of decision of University is by invoking
jurisdiction of Chancellor under Section 10
of University of Allahabad Act, 2005.
Since
earlier
writ
petition
was
not
dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file
second writ petition, this writ petition for
the
same
cause
of
action
is
not
maintainable. The law in this regard has
been settled by Apex Court in Sarguja
Transport Service v. S.T.A.T., (1987) 1
SCC 5. In paragraph 9 of judgment, apex
Court held as under :-

"9. The point for consideration is
whether a petitioner after withdrawing a writ
petition filed by him in the High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
without the permission to institute a fresh
petition can file a fresh writ petition in the
High Court under that article. On this point
the decision in Daryao case AIR 1961 SC
1457 : (1962) 1 SCR 574 is of no assistance.
But we are of the view that the principle
underlying Rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code
should be extended in the interests of
administration of justice
to cases of
withdrawal of writ petition also, not on the
ground of res judicata but on the ground of
public policy as explained above. It would
also discourage the litigant from indulging in
bench-hunting tactics. In any event there is
no justifiable reason in such a case to permit
a petitioner to invoke the extraordinary
jurisdiction of the High Court under Article
226 of the Constitution once again. While the
withdrawal of a writ petition filed in a High
Court without permission to file a fresh writ
petition may not bar other remedies like a
suit or a petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India since such withdrawal
does not amount to res judicata, the remedy
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
should be deemed to have been abandoned by
the petitioner in respect of the cause of action
relied on in the writ petition when he
withdraws it without such permission. In the
instant case the High Court was right in
holding that a fresh writ petition was not
maintainable before it in respect of the same
subject-matter since the earlier writ petition
had been withdrawn without permission to
file a fresh petition. We, however, make it
clear that whatever we have stated in this
order may not be considered as being
applicable to a writ petition involving the
personal liberty of an individual in which the
petitioner prays for the issue of a writ in the
nature of habeas corpus or seeks to enforce
the fundamental rignt guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution since such a
case stands on a different footing altogether.
We, however leave this question open."

4. In Mahendra and others v. State
of Uttaranchal and another, (2007) 10
SCC 158, Court while considering the said
576 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
issue issued guidelines to the High Court to
make provision in the relevant rules. In
para 9 of judgment, Court held as under:-

"9. Before we part with the case, it
has to be noted that several instances
have come to our notice that several writ
petitions of similar nature are being filed
without disclosing that earlier a petition
had been filed. It would be therefore
appropriate for the High Courts to make
provision in the relevant rules that in
every petition it shall be clearly stated as
to whether any earlier petition had been
filed and/or is pending in respect of the
same cause of action. It shall also be
indicated as to what was the result of the
earlier petition. If this procedure is
followed, the confusion of the kind which
has surfaced in this case can be ruled
out."

5. Similar controversy has also been
decided by Supreme Court in Manubhai
J. Patel v. Bank of Baroda, 2000 (10)
SCC 253; Union of India v. Ranbir
Singh Rathaur, 2006 (11) SCC 696;
and, Ishwar Dutt v. Land Acquisition
Collector, AIR 2005 SC 3165.

6. Considering the proposition of
law propounded by Apex Court in
aforesaid cases, we hold that present writ
petition
filed
by
petitioner
is
not
maintainable. Dismissed accordingly.
----------
(2021)03ILR A576
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.02.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.

Transfer Application (Civil) No. 70 of 2021
M/S
Bold
Leasing
&
Fin.
Pvt.
Ltd.
Ghaziabad ...Applicant
Versus
Smt. Dimpal Kohali ...Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Rajiv Kumar Mishra, Sri Ved Byas Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
-

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section
24-applicant was heard on the application
under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC -the court
fixed date for delivery of orders- First
ground taken by the applicant that he
demanded file from the reader of the court
who did not supply him on the pretext
that the same is with the Stenographer is
not sufficient ground for transfer of a
case- Second, ground that the opposite
party is propagating in the court campus
that he will get injunction from the court
cannot be said to form bonafide and
reasonable apprehension in the mind of
the applicant that he would not get
justice-the
said
propaganda
is
also
hearsay and there is no material on record
to corroborate the said apprehension.
(Para 2 to 16)

The Transfer Application is dismissed. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saral Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant.

2. The present transfer application has
been filed by the defendant in Original Suit
No. 689 of 2020 (Smt. Dimpal Kohali Vs.
M/s Bold Leasing and Finance Pvt. Ltd.)
pending before the court of Civil Judge (Sr.
Division),
Ghazibad.
The
transfer
application has been filed on the ground
that there is apprehension in the mind of
the applicant that he may not get justice
from the court of Civil Judge (Sr.
Division),
Ghazibad.
The
said
apprehension is based upon the fact that in