# Rakesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and others - **Citation:** (2003) 3 ILRA 689 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2003-07-11 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29108 of 2003 - **Bench:** M. Katju, R.S. Tripathi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rakesh-kumar-singh-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40162 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Constitution of India-Article 226 violation of Injunction order-interim injunction-proper remedy is to file application under order 39 Rule 2A of C.P.C. and not to file writ petition. The petition is misconceived and dismissed with a Special Cost of Rs. 25,000/- Held- Para 2 If this temporary injunction was not being obeyed then the petitioner should have filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2 A of the CPC, but instead this writ petition has been filed. There can be no clearer case of abuse of the process of this Court. This writ petition should never have been filed, and we are constrained to observe that learned counsel in this case has not given correct advice to his client. ## Text 3 All] Rakesh Kumar Singh V. State of U.P. and others 689 have not been specifically denied in para 14 of the Counter Affidavit. 17. Perusal of the impugned order dated September 11, 2000 Annexure 18 to the Writ Petition also does not disclose as to which records were taken into account and what was the material on the basis of which members of the DPC ignored the name of the petitioner for promotion. 18. In view of unrebutted pleadings in the Writ Petition, referred to above, we find that name of the petitioner has been ignored without plausible justification. Impugned order contains no indication of the material which has been relied against the petitioner. 19. In view of the above, the impugned order dated September 11, 2000 is hereby quashed, concerned respondents and its authorities, servants, nominees, etc. are directed to consider the name of the Petitioner within four weeks of the receipt of the certified copy of this judgment and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. If the petitioner is found fit for being promoted on the date on which his juniors were promoted, the petitioner shall be entitled to all benefits and privileges treating notionally promoted w.e.f. the date his juniors have been given promotion and place him just above the next person junior to him in the cadre of Superintending Engineer. 20. Writ Petition succeeds. No order as to costs. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.07.2003 BEFORE THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J. THE HON'BLE R.S. TRIPATHI, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29108 of 2003 Rakesh Kumar Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri B. Prasad Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Subodh Kumar S.C. Constitution of India-Article 226 violation of Injunction order-interim injunction-proper remedy is to file application under order 39 Rule 2A of C.P.C. and not to file writ petition. The petition is misconceived and dismissed with a Special Cost of Rs. 25,000/- Held- Para 2 If this temporary injunction was not being obeyed then the petitioner should have filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2 A of the CPC, but instead this writ petition has been filed. There can be no clearer case of abuse of the process of this Court. This writ petition should never have been filed, and we are constrained to observe that learned counsel in this case has not given correct advice to his client. (Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.) 1. This writ petition discloses how the process of the High Court is being abused by filing frivolous writ petitions in large numbers when there is already a http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 690 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003 huge burden on this Court due to the large arrears. There was a time in this country when learned counsel used to give correct advice to clients and the preliminary screening of the case was done in the chamber of the learned counsel itself, and if there was no useful purpose in filing a case the learned counsel would frankly say so to his client. Today this hardly happens and the learned counsels file all kinds of frivolous cases thus causing immense problems to this Court, which is already highly overburdened with the pending cases. 2. This malpractice has been committed in this case too. The petitioner has already filed civil suit no. 364 of 2002 for the same relief, which he is claiming in this writ petition. In that suit a temporary injunction was granted, copy of which is Annexure-5 to the writ petition, which was passed after hearing both the sides. In this temporary injunction order, the operative portion of which is on pages 134 and 135 of the writ petition, the precise relief which the petitioner is praying for in this writ petition has been granted in that temporary injunction. The defendant-respondents were restrained from withdrawing the amount from the respondent Bank and from depositing the same in any other Bank account. If this temporary injunction was not being obeyed then the petitioner should have filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2 A of the CPC, but instead this writ petition has been filed. There can be no clearer case of abuse of the process of this Court. This writ petition should never have been filed, and we are constrained to observe that learned counsel in this case has not given correct advice to his client. 3. It is well settled that if there is an alternative remedy available this Court does not normally interfere in writ jurisdiction. In this case not only is there an alternative remedy, that remedy is actually being availed of by the petitioner by filing a civil suit, and in fact the petitioner has got a temporary injunction order. This is not an isolated case, and a large number of frivolous petitions are being filed in this Court. It passes all comprehension why such frivolous cases are being filed in this Court, and the time has now come when this Court must start taking serious action in such matters otherwise it will be flooded with Lakhs and Lakhs of frivolous case. 4. We therefore, dismiss the writ petition. We also direct the petitioner to pay costs of Rs.25,000/= which will be paid by the petitioner within a month from today to the State Government, failing which it will be recovered by the District Magistrate Hathras as arrears of land revenue. Learned Standing counsel as well as Registrar General of this Court, will communicate this order to the District Magistrate, Hathras forthwith. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.07.2003 BEFORE THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J. THE HON'BLE R.S. TRIPATHI, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38343 of 2002 M/s Gupta Service Station and another ...Petitioner Versus Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others ...Respondent http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in