# Prem Prakash Yadav v. Union of India

- **Citation:** (2023) 11 ILRA 598
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-11-21
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 3990 of 2014
- **Bench:** Vivek Chaudhary, Manish Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/prem-prakash-yadav-v-union-of-india-49378
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950 -
Article 226 - Writ Petition - Forum
Conveniens - Forum Hunting - In civil
proceedings, the plaintiff is the dominus
litis, but where more than one court has
jurisdiction, the Court can determine
which is the convenient forum and may
impose conditions in the interest of justice
subject to which its jurisdiction may be
invoked. Petitioner alone does not have an
exclusive discretion to choose jurisdiction
when it lies at multiple places.
In
appropriate cases, the Court may exercise
its inherent jurisdiction to fix the forum,
considering
the
convenience
of
the
parties, witnesses, and the Court itself. A
party has a choice to invoke jurisdiction
either at Allahabad or at Lucknow, but
once that choice is exercised, it should
ordinarily be adhered to in subsequent
proceedings.
Having
chosen
one
jurisdiction, a petitioner cannot shift to
another without cogent reasons, which
were absent in this case. Mere availability
of
concurrent
jurisdiction
either
at
Allahabad or Lucknow does not confer a
right to indulge in forum shopping. It is
not merely the petitioner's convenience
but also that of all concerned, including
the Court, that matters. - In the instant
case petitioner had earlier filed Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No. 17060 of 2002 and WritC No. 15798 of 2010 at Allahabad for the
same relief concerning the same property.
The instant petition, filed at Lucknow,
being the third in respect of the same
property, was held not maintainable.
(Para 12)

B. Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 -
Chapter 22, Rule 1 - Mandatory Disclosure
- In the instant case the petitioner failed
to disclose in paragraph 1 of the writ
petition whether any earlier writ petitions
had been filed, as mandatorily required
under Chapter 22, Rule 1 of the Allahabad
High Court Rules, 1952. Such disclosure
must be made in the very first paragraph
and not elsewhere. The omission to
disclose earlier petitions filed at Allahabad
amounts to forum hunting and not forum
conveniens. (Paras 5, 6, 7, 8)

C.
United
Provinces
High
Court
(Amalgamation) Order, 1948, Clause 14 -
Transfer of Petitions -
Petitions can be transferred by the Chief
Justice
while sitting
at
Lucknow
to
Allahabad, but not vice versa. Matters
filed at Allahabad can be heard only at
11 All. Prem Prakash Yadav Vs. Union of India
599
Allahabad and cannot be summoned to
Lucknow. (Para 9)

Petition Dismissed. (E-5)

## Text

598 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
respondents elect to proceed in accordance
with law, they may not, for the present,
consider the issue of payment of back
wages, which shall be subject to the result
of the disciplinary proceedings to be taken
afresh. If the petitioner is exonerated in the
disciplinary proceedings, the respondents
will consider, depending on the findings,
the petitioner's entitlement to back wages.
Likewise, if the respondents do not elect to
proceed afresh, the petitioner will be
entitled to 50% back wages together with
continuity of service and seniority.

34. There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2023) 11 ILRA 598
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 21.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J
THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

Writ-C No. 3990 of 2014

Prem Prakash Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Chandra Kala Pandey, Prince Verma, Ravi
Shanker Tewari, Santosh Kr. Yadav Warsi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., A.S.G., Amarjeet Singh Rakhra, Gaurav
Mehrotra, Maria Fatima, V.K. Dubey

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950 -
Article 226 - Writ Petition - Forum
Conveniens - Forum Hunting - In civil
proceedings, the plaintiff is the dominus
litis, but where more than one court has
jurisdiction, the Court can determine
which is the convenient forum and may
impose conditions in the interest of justice
subject to which its jurisdiction may be
invoked. Petitioner alone does not have an
exclusive discretion to choose jurisdiction
when it lies at multiple places.
In
appropriate cases, the Court may exercise
its inherent jurisdiction to fix the forum,
considering
the
convenience
of
the
parties, witnesses, and the Court itself. A
party has a choice to invoke jurisdiction
either at Allahabad or at Lucknow, but
once that choice is exercised, it should
ordinarily be adhered to in subsequent
proceedings.
Having
chosen
one
jurisdiction, a petitioner cannot shift to
another without cogent reasons, which
were absent in this case. Mere availability
of
concurrent
jurisdiction
either
at
Allahabad or Lucknow does not confer a
right to indulge in forum shopping. It is
not merely the petitioner's convenience
but also that of all concerned, including
the Court, that matters. - In the instant
case petitioner had earlier filed Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No. 17060 of 2002 and WritC No. 15798 of 2010 at Allahabad for the
same relief concerning the same property.
The instant petition, filed at Lucknow,
being the third in respect of the same
property, was held not maintainable.
(Para 12)

B. Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 -
Chapter 22, Rule 1 - Mandatory Disclosure
- In the instant case the petitioner failed
to disclose in paragraph 1 of the writ
petition whether any earlier writ petitions
had been filed, as mandatorily required
under Chapter 22, Rule 1 of the Allahabad
High Court Rules, 1952. Such disclosure
must be made in the very first paragraph
and not elsewhere. The omission to
disclose earlier petitions filed at Allahabad
amounts to forum hunting and not forum
conveniens. (Paras 5, 6, 7, 8)

C.
United
Provinces
High
Court
(Amalgamation) Order, 1948, Clause 14 -
Transfer of Petitions -
Petitions can be transferred by the Chief
Justice
while sitting
at
Lucknow
to
Allahabad, but not vice versa. Matters
filed at Allahabad can be heard only at
11 All. Prem Prakash Yadav Vs. Union of India
599
Allahabad and cannot be summoned to
Lucknow. (Para 9)

Petition Dismissed. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary, J.
& Hon'ble Manish Kumar, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for parties.

2. Petitioner, a practicing advocate
claims himself to be a tenant of House No.
23, Stanley Road, Allahabad (new number
being 85) built upon Nazul land bearing
Nazul Plot No. 22 AA situated at Civil
Station, Allahabad. The said plot was
registered
under
the
name
of
Smt.
Chandrakala
Devi.
On
16.06.2001,
approval was granted for conversion of the
said Nazul Land into freehold in favour of
legal heirs of late Smt. Chandrakala Devi.
A sale deed was executed by legal heirs of
Late Smt. Chandrakala Devi on 18.08.2001
in favour of respondent Nos. 8 to 10. By
the present petition, petitioner is praying
for the quashing of a government policy
decision
dated
26.02.2014
whereby
approval was given to revise rates for
conversion of Nazul property into freeholds
and change in Nazul policy. He is also
challenging Clause 10 of Notification dated
04.03.2014. A prayer for quashing of deed
dated 07.07.2001 whereby in pursuance of
order dated 16.06.2001, a sale deed was
executed by the State in favour of legal
heirs of Late Smt. Chandrakala Devi. A
prayer seeking mandamus commanding the
respondents to not interfere in petitioner's
possession over House No. 23, Stanley
Road, Allahabad (built on Nazul Plot No.
22AA).

3. Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, assisted by
Ms. Maria Fatima, learned counsel for
respondent Nos. 8 to 10 questions the
maintainability of present petition at
Lucknow. He submits that petitioner has
previously filed a writ petition bearing
number Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
17060 of 2002 (R. S Yadav and Anr. v.
State of U.P. and Ors.) at Allahabad
praying
for
mandamus
commanding
respondents therein to execute sale deed in
favour of petitioner for the same Nazul
property, which was disposed of by its
judgment and order dated 19.02.2009, with
observation that State is not duty bound to
execute a sale deed in favour of any
individual. Another writ petition bearing
number Writ- C No. 15798 of 2010 (Prem
Prakash Yadav v. Union of India and
Ors.) is also filed by the present petitioner
at Allahabad wherein he has prayed for
essentially the same reliefs with regard to
same property. This is the third petition
filed by the petitioner now at Lucknow
with regard to the same property. He
submits that filing of third petition at
Lucknow, after filing two earlier petitions
at Allahabad amounts to forum hunting and
is against the settled principle of law that
once a forum has been chosen by a party he
should stick with the same forum with
regard to all future litigation in the said
matter. In support of his submissions,
learned counsel for the petitioner has
placed reliance upon a reported judgment
of the Supreme Court in the case of Kusum
Ingots & Alloys Ltd. vs Union of India
and Another;(2004) 6 SCC 254.

4. Counsel for the petitioner insists
that cause of action in the present petition
has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction
of Lucknow as well as Allahabad and thus
present petition is maintainable at Lucknow
also. Petitioner had earlier filed two
petitions bearing numbers Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No.15798 of 2010 and Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No. 17060 of 2002 at
600 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Allahabad. Learned counsel for petitioner
submits that he does not know whether
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.17060 of 2002
is pending or disposed of. Filing of present
petition at Lucknow is only an exercise of
forum conveniens. He further states that in
paragraph-68 and 85 of writ petition,
petitioner claims that he has already
disclosed filing of earlier writ petitions.
Paragraph 68 of the writ petition reads-

"68. That consequently, the petitioner
along with another had filed writ petition
before this Hon'ble Court on 29.04.2002
challenging the grant of free-hold rights
which was made in illegal and fraudulent
manner. This was numbered as Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No.. 17060 of 2002 where in
the following order was passed:-

"Hon'ble M. Katju, J.

& Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.

Connect with Writ Petition No. 7478
of 2000. Standing Counsel may file counter
affidavit within the weeks. In the mean
time, status quo as regards possession,
shall be maintained till further orders.

Sd./- M. Katju.

Sd./- Rakesh Tiwari""

Paragraph 85 of the writ petition
reads-

"85. That thereafter the petitioner had
filed a writ petition before this Hon'ble
Court challenging the legality & validity of
the order dated 5.6.2009 passed by the
Principal Secretary, Deptt. of Housing &
Urban Planning, Govt. of U.P. This was
numbered as Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
15798 of 2010. This Hon'ble Court was
pleased to pass order on 1.4.2010 directing
the counsel for Union of India and the State
pf U.P. to file the counter affidavits. A look
at the order dated 1.4.2010 also reveals
that the decision or the order making the
conversion of the land in question into
freehold were directed to be not affecting
the
petitioner's
rights
which
would
obliviously be the right of tenant & also to
seek the conversion of the nazul land into
free-hold. Thus the petitioner's rights were
not affected or prejudiced in any manner.
The photo copy of the order of this Hon'ble
Court dated 1.4.2010 is being filed
herewith and is marked as Annexure No. 28
to this writ petition."

5. A perusal of the paperbook shows
that the petitioner has stated in his first
paragraph of the writ petition that this is his
first writ petition with regard to the present
cause of action. Petitioner failed to disclose
whether he has filed any writ petition
earlier or not in paragraph-1 of writ petition
as is mandatorily required by Chapter 22,
Rule 1 of Allahabad High Court Rules,
1952. The said disclosure was mandatorily
required to be made in first paragraph of
writ petition and not in later paragraphs. He
ought to have disclosed in first paragraph
itself that earlier petitions were filed at
Allahabad.

6. Petitioner insists that the present
petition is filed against a cause of action
that arises within Lucknow. However, he
has admitted in paragraph 68 and 85 that he
has earlier filed two petitions at Allahabad
with regard to same property. Filing of
present petition at Lucknow amounts to
forum hunting and not forum conveniens.
Supreme Court has settled law with regard
to forum conveniens in the case of Kusum
Ingots & Alloys Ltd. (supra), the relevant
paragraph-30 of the same reads:-

"Forum conveniens
30. We must, however, remind ourselves
that even if a small part of cause of action
arises within the territorial jurisdiction of
11 All. Prem Prakash Yadav Vs. Union of India
601
the High Court, the same by itself may not
be considered to be a determinative factor
compelling the High Court to decide the
matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the
Court
may
refuse
to
exercise
its
discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the
doctrine of forum conveniens. [See Bhagat
Singh Bugga v. Dewan Jagbir Sawhney
[AIR 1941 Cal 670 : ILR (1941) 1 Cal 490]
, Madanlal Jalan v. Madanlal [(1945) 49
CWN 357 : AIR 1949 Cal 495] , Bharat
Coking Coal Ltd. v. Jharia Talkies & Cold
Storage (P) Ltd. [1997 CWN 122] , S.S.
Jain & Co. v. Union of India [(1994) 1
CHN 445] and New Horizons Ltd. v. Union
of India [AIR 1994 Del 126]."

7. In Krishna Veni Nagam (supra),
the Supreme Court in Para 13 held:

"13. We have considered the above
suggestions. In this respect, we may also
refer to the doctrine of forum non
conveniens which can be applied in
matrimonial proceedings for advancing
interest of justice. Under the said doctrine,
the court exercises its inherent jurisdiction
to stay proceedings at a forum which is
considered not to be convenient and there
is any other forum which is considered to
be more convenient for the interest of all
the parties at the ends of justice. In Modi
Entertainment Network v. W.S.G. Cricket
Pte. Ltd. [Modi Entertainment Network v.
W.S.G. Cricket Pte. Ltd., (2003) 4 SCC
341] this Court observed : (SCC pp. 35657, para 19)

"19. In Spiliada Maritime case
[Spiliada Maritime Corpn. v. Cansulex
Ltd., (1986) 3 All ER 843 : 1987 AC 460 :
(1986) 3 WLR 972 (HL)] the House of
Lords laid down the following principle :
(All ER p. 844a)

"The
fundamental
principle
applicable to both the stay of English
proceedings on the ground that some other
forum was the appropriate forum and also
the grant of leave to serve proceedings out
of the jurisdiction was that the court would
choose that forum in which the case could
be tried more suitably for the interests of all
the parties and for the ends of justice.??

The criteria to determine which was a
more appropriate forum, for the purpose of
ordering stay of the suit, the court would
look for that forum with which the action
had
the
most
real
and
substantial
connection in terms of convenience or
expense, availability of witnesses, the law
governing the relevant transaction and the
places where the parties resided or carried
on business. If the court concluded that
there was no other available forum which
was more appropriate than the English
court, it would normally refuse a stay. If,
however, the court concluded that there was
another forum which was prima facie more
appropriate, the court would normally
grant
a
stay
unless
there
were
circumstances militating against a stay. It
was noted that as the dispute concerning
the contract in which the proper law was
English law, it meant that England was the
appropriate forum in which the case could
be more suitably tried.?(emphasis in
original)

Though these observations have been
made in the context of granting anti-suit
injunction, the principle can be followed in
regulating the exercise of jurisdiction of the
court where proceedings are instituted. In a
civil proceeding, the plaintiff is the dominus
litis but if more than one court has
jurisdiction, court can determine which is
the convenient forum and lay down
conditions in the interest of justice subject
to which its jurisdiction may be availed
[Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of
India, (2004) 6 SCC 254, para 30] ."
(emphasis added)
602 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

8. In Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd.
(supra) and Krishna Veni Nagam (supra),
Supreme
Court
has
held
that
plaintiff/petitioner alone does not have
exclusive discretion to choose jurisdiction
when the same lies at multiple places. In
appropriate cases, Court can exercise its
inherent jurisdiction and fix jurisdiction
taking into consideration the convenience
of parties, witnesses, Court and any other
relevant factors, which would impact the
proceedings.

9. No doubt petitioner is master of his
petitions. In case jurisdiction partially falls
at Lucknow in appropriate case a petition
can be filed at Lucknow also. But in the
present matter earlier repeatedly petitioner
chose to file petitions at Allahabad and
some of them are pending at Allahabad.
The said fact ought to have been disclosed
by the petitioner in the very first paragraph
of his writ petition. The same was not done.
Even otherwise, the unique position with
regard to Allahabad High Court is that
under Clause-14 of United Provinces High
Court (Amalgamation) Order, 1948 the
petitions can be transferred by the Chief
Justice while sitting at Lucknow to
Allahabad but same can neither be
transferred by him from Allahabad to
Lucknow nor any Court can summon them.
The matters at Allahabad can only be heard
at Allahabad. Therefore, in the given
circumstances, this Court can not summon
the records from Allahbad. It creates a
unique difficulty. Thus, in this peculiar
situation it is necessary that once petitioner
chooses between Lucknow or Allahabad for
filing his petitions the same is a judicial
discipline and ought to be followed in later
petitions, if any filed. In absence of the
same it becomes difficult for Courts at
Allahabad and Lucknow, to have all the
matters together and decide the same.
Petitioner in garb of his power to chose
forum can not cause inconvenience to
Court and keep list pending unnecessary in
bifurcated manner.

10. This type of disputes are
frequently occurring before this Court. The
difficulty faced by the Court, in the
aforesaid circumstances, where a case
cannot be transferred from Allahabad to
Lucknow while they can be transferred
from Lucknow to Allahabad only when
Chief Justice of High Court sitting at
Lucknow passes an order under Clause 14
of the United Provinces High Court
(Amalgamation)
Order,
1948,
creates
unnecessary hurdle in disposal of cases, if
jurisdiction is changed from one place to
another by the parties to the dispute. It
needs to be solved.

11. Merely because petitioner has a
right to file writ petition before any Court
of their choice either at Allahabad or
Lucknow, it does not give them a kangaroo
right to hop around jurisdiction on whims.
It is not only his convenience, which is to
be looked into, but convenience of all
related is also relevant, including that of
Court. Facts of this case are a glaring
example of the same. The difficulty being
faced by this Court is created by petitioner
only.

12. A party has a choice to invoke
jurisdiction
of
this
Court
either
at
Allahabad or at Lucknow and once they
have exercised the said choice, parties
should restrict themselves to their initial
choice of forum while filing later petitions.
Hopping around forums would be highly
inconvenient to the working of the Court as
in the present case. Once petitioner chooses
a jurisdiction, out of many available, in
normal course, he should stick with the
11 All. Suman Engineering & Chem. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. U.P.P.C.L. & Ors.
603
same, unless he can provide cogent reasons
for his hopping around. In the present case
the petitioner has not provided any such
reasons.

13. In view thereof, the writ petition
is dismissed with liberty to petitioner to file
the same at Allahabad.

14. Interim order, if any, stands
vacated.
----------
(2023) 11 ILRA 603
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

Writ-C No. 6072 of 2016

Suman Engineering & Chem. Pvt. Ltd.
 ...Petitioner
Versus
U.P.P.C.L. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ranjit Saxena, Sri Bidhan Chandra Rai

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.,
Sri
Anadi
Krishna
Narayana,
Sri
AwadheshKumar Saxena, Sri Krishna Agarwal,
Sri Narendra Kumar Tiwari, Ms. Vishakha, Sri
Shambhu Chopra (Sr. Advocate)

Civil Law - U.P. Electricity Supply Code,
2005 - Clause 4.2, 4.6(b), 4.6(c) & 4.21 -
Electricity Act, 2003 - Sections 42, 43, 45,
46 & 50 - Petitioner-company, seeks
direction
to
respondents
to
refund
₹42,14,181 with interest, including additional
interest for six-month delay in refunding
security deposit, following cancellation of
3200 KVA power load - Petitioner contended
that system-loading charge was refundable,
as it is to recover upgrade costs from new or
enhanced-load consumers - Since sanction
was cancelled before electricity supply began,
petitioner not liable for such charges -
Explanation to Note No. 4 of Chapter IV of
Cause Data Book was misplaced, it permits
licensee to retain higher amount paid as
system-loading charges, in case consumer
subsequently opts for new load of lower
capacity - Such consumer continues to be
beneficiary of distribution system, liable to
share burden - Only actual expenses, not
normative costs, be recovered unless licensee
starts availing services - System-loading
charges recover costs for strengthening
distribution system, apply when prospective
consumer begins using electricity - If supply
never starts, consumer cannot be charged,
once supply begins, licensee may retain
amount, under Clause 4.21(a), no refund is
made even if load is later reduced - Petitioner,
being only prospective, not actual consumer,
no liability to share system upgrade costs,
entitled to refund of ₹32 lakhs with 8.5%
annual interest from date of deposit till refund.
(Para 1, 10, 38, 40)

Writ petition allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Central GST Delhi-III Vs Delhi International Airport
Ltd, (2023) 9 SCC 294

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

1. The prayer made in the writ petition is
for a direction to the respondents to refund Rs.
42,14,181/- to the petitioner, along with interest
on the said amount and further interest for the
period of six months for delay caused in
refunding the security amount as a result of
cancellation of 3200 KVA power load by
order dated 22.11.2014.

Background Facts -

2. The petitioner, a private limited
company, applied for 2975 KVA load for
running an induction furnace. Along with
the application, the petitioner deposited