# Ramesh Chandra v. State of U.P. & Ors. 486 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2020) 12 ILRA 485
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-10-21
- **Case number:** Writ - C No. 17015 of 2020
- **Bench:** Naheed Ara Moonis, Vivek Varma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramesh-chandra-v-state-of-u-p-ors-486-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-45620
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

(A) Civil law - Code of Civil Procedure ,1908
- Order 23 rule 1 C.P.C. - Public Policy which
is reflected in the principle enshrined in
Order 23 rule 1 C.P.C., mandates that
successive
writ
petition
cannot
be
entertained for the same relief - Explanation
IV to Section 11 and Order 2 rule 2 of Code
of Civil Procedure ,1908 - principle of
constructive res judicata - Even if a party
does not pray for the relief in the earlier writ
petition, which he ought to have claimed in
the earlier petition, he cannot file a
successive writ petition claiming that relief,
as it would be barred. (Para - 4,5)

Dispute relating to maintainability of second writ
petition for the same relief.

Held: -The relief claimed in the present writ
petition is same as in the earlier writ petition
and as such this is the second writ petition for
the same cause of action and even otherwise, if
the petitioner has not claimed the relief in the
earlier writ petition which he ought to have
claimed, he cannot maintain the present writ
petition. (Para - 8)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited: -

## Text

12 All. Ramesh Chandra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
485
''socio-beneficial'
Scheme
has
to
be
interpreted in a manner so as to advance the
purpose
for
which
the
Scheme
is
formulated and not in a manner so as to
defeat the entire purpose of the Scheme.

36. Thus, we set aside the order dated
Nil March, 2020 (Annexure-9), whereby
the claim of the petitioner has been rejected
on the ground of limitation on both grounds
as raised and discussed in this Judgment.

37. We further direct that in place of
Limitation Prescribed under the Scheme, it
should be read that the claims made within three
years of the date of the death or within three
years from the date of the rejection, either wholly
or partly by the Insurance Company, to be a
reasonable period for filing a claim under the
'Mukhyamantri Kisan Avam Sarvahit Bima
Scheme' and the similar schemes which were in
force prior thereto on behalf of beneficiaries of
the Scheme.

38. As innumerable cases are filed
seeking compensation under the schemes
across the State, we direct that all the
claims filed within a period of three years
from the date of the death or within a
period of three years from the date of
rejection of claim, either partly or wholly
by the Insurance Company, should be
treated to be filed within limitation and
should be processed on their merits .

39. As we have held that the limitation
provided under the said Scheme is unreasonable
and arbitrary and have substituted the said
period by a period of three years, as recorded
above, we direct the Registrar General of this
Court to transmit a copy of this order to The
Chief Secretary State of Uttar Pradesh and
Director Institutional Finance,State of Uttar
Pradesh ,for its communication to all the
District Magistrates in the State and the District
Magistrates in turn are directed to entertain and
process the claims filed under the Scheme
within limitation as prescribed above by this
Court treating them to be within limitation and
the same should be processed on their merits.

40. We have directed and provided for
the limitation of three years, till the time the
State Government takes an appropriate decision
and amends limitation clauses of the Scheme to
make them more reasonable taking into account
the socio economic condition of the society as
well the laws of India.

41. The writ petition is allowed in
terms of the said order.

42. The District Magistrate, Jaunpur
shall now process the claim of the
petitioner in accordance with law on its
merits treating the same to be within
limitation and the same shall be processed
expeditiously preferably within a period of
three months from the date of filing of the
copy of this order.

43. Copy of this judgment downloaded
from the official website of this Court shall be
treated/accepted as certified copy of this
judgment.
----------
(2020)12ILR A485
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.10.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NAHEED ARA MOONIS, J.
THE HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

Writ - C No. 17015 of 2020

Ramesh Chandra ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
486 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rajeev Chaddha

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Sanjai Singh

(A) Civil law - Code of Civil Procedure ,1908
- Order 23 rule 1 C.P.C. - Public Policy which
is reflected in the principle enshrined in
Order 23 rule 1 C.P.C., mandates that
successive
writ
petition
cannot
be
entertained for the same relief - Explanation
IV to Section 11 and Order 2 rule 2 of Code
of Civil Procedure ,1908 - principle of
constructive res judicata - Even if a party
does not pray for the relief in the earlier writ
petition, which he ought to have claimed in
the earlier petition, he cannot file a
successive writ petition claiming that relief,
as it would be barred. (Para - 4,5)

Dispute relating to maintainability of second writ
petition for the same relief.

Held: -The relief claimed in the present writ
petition is same as in the earlier writ petition
and as such this is the second writ petition for
the same cause of action and even otherwise, if
the petitioner has not claimed the relief in the
earlier writ petition which he ought to have
claimed, he cannot maintain the present writ
petition. (Para - 8)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited: -

1. M/s. Sarguja Transport Service Vs State
Transport Appellate Tribunal & ors., AIR 1987
SC 88

2. Ashok Kumar & ors. Vs Delhi Development
Authority, (1994) 6 SCC 97

3. Khacher Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors., AIR 1995
All. 338

4. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay Vs
T.P. Kumaran, (1996) 10 SCC 561

5. U.O.I. & ors. Vs Punnilal & ors., (1996) 11
SCC 112
6. M/s. D. Cawasji & Co. & Ors. Vs St. of Mysore
& anr., AIR 1975 SC 813

7. Avinash Nagra Vs Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti
& ors., (1997) 2 SCC 534

8. Uda Ram Vs Central State Farm & ors., AIR
1998 Raj. 186

9. M/s. Rajasthan Art Emporium Vs Rajasthan
State Industrial and Investment Corporation &
anr., AIR 1998 Raj. 277

(Delivered by Hon'ble Naheed Ara
Moonis, J. & Hon'ble Vivek Varma, J.)

1. The present writ petition has been
filed, seeking following reliefs:

"(a) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to
consider the applications of the petitioner
either to release the property in favour of
the petitioner with permission to sale the
same and to furnish bank guarantee after
sale of the property or to sanction loan of
Rs. 10,00,000/- to the petitioner against the
property, title deed of which is already in
custody of the Bank.

(b) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents to pay
compensation of the construction which has
been demolished in arbitrary manner."

2. Sri Sanjai Singh, learned counsel
for the respondents has raised a preliminary
objection regarding maintainability of this
writ petition, contending that the petitioner
had earlier filed a writ petition being WritC No. 20802 of 2019 (Ramesh Chandra Vs.
The State of U.P. and 2 others) and the said
writ petition was disposed of vide order
dated 28.06.2019. He, therefore, submits
that this is the second writ petition for the
same relief and is not maintainable. The
12 All. Ramesh Chandra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
487
order passed in the earlier writ petition
reads as under:

"Heard
Sri
Gandesh
Mani
Tripathi
for
the
petitioner,
Standing
Counsel for State and Sri Umesh Dutt
Shukla holding brief of Sri Sanjai Singh for
respondents- 2 and 3.

The writ petition has been filed
for quashing the notice dated 4.5.2019 by
which the application of the petitioner for
issuing no objection certificate as well as
returning the original registered sale deed
filed by the petitioner at the time of taking
house loan, has been rejected.

A perusal of the impugned order
shows that the disciplinary proceeding
against
the
petitioner
relating
to
embezzlement of fund is pending, therefore,
the sale deed which was deposited by the
petitioner by way of mortgage had not been
returned inasmuch as in case the petitioner
is found guilty for embezzlement then
money
can
be
recovered
from
the
petitioner.

The impugned order does not
suffer from any illegality. However in case
the petitioner furnishes a bank guarantee of
the total embezzled amount then the
petitioner may be considered for returning
his sale deed within one month.

With the aforesaid observation,
the writ petition is disposed of."

3. Heard Sri Rajeev Chaddha, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjai
Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 as also
perused the record.

4. The issue of filing successive writ
petition has been considered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court time and again and held
that even if the earlier writ petition has
been dismissed as withdrawn, Public Policy
which is reflected in the principle enshrined
in Order 23 rule 1 C.P.C., mandates that
successive
writ
petition
cannot
be
entertained for the same relief. (Vide M/s.
Sarguja Transport Service Vs. State
Transport Appellate Tribunal & Ors., AIR
1987 SC 88; Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs.
Delhi Development Authority, 1994 (6)
SCC 97; and Khacher Singh Vs. State of
U.P. & Ors., AIR 1995 All. 338).

5. Even if a party does not pray for
the relief in the earlier writ petition, which
he ought to have claimed in the earlier
petition, he cannot file a successive writ
petition claiming that relief, as it would be
barred by the principle of constructive res
judicata enshrined in Explanation IV to
Section 11 and Order 2 rule 2 C.P.C. as has
been explained, in unambiguous and crystal
clear language by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Commissioner of Income Tax,
Bombay Vs. T.P. Kumaran, 1996 (10)
SCC 561; Union of India & Ors. Vs.
Punnilal & Ors., 1996 (11) SCC 112; and
M/s. D. Cawasji & Co. & Ors. Vs. State of
Mysore & Anr., AIR 1975 SC 813.

6. Similar view has been reiterated by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avinash
Nagra Vs. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti &
Ors., (1997) 2 SCC 534 and by the other
Court in Uda Ram Vs. Central State Farm
& ors., AIR 1998 Raj. 186; and M/s.
Rajasthan Art Emporium Vs. Rajasthan
State
Industrial
and
Investment
Corporation & Anr., AIR 1998 Raj. 277.

7. In M/s. D. Cawasji & Co. etc. Vs.
State of Mysore & Anr. (Supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-

"Be that as it may, in the earlier
writ petitions, the appellants did not pray
for refund of the amounts paid by way of
488 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
cess for the years 1951-52 to 1965-66 and
they gave no reasons before the High Court
in these writ petitions why they did not
make the prayer for refund of the amounts
paid during the years in question. Avoiding
multiplicity
of
unnecessary
legal
proceedings should be an aim of the
Courts. Therefore, the appellants could not
be allowed to split up their claims for
refund and file writ petitions in this
piecemeal fashion. If the appellants could
have, but did not, without any legal
justification, claim refund of the amounts
paid during the years in question, in the
earlier writ petitions, we see no reason why
the appellants should be allowed to claim
the amounts by filing writ petitions again.
In the circumstances of this case, having
regard to the conduct of the appellants in
not claiming these amounts in the earlier
writ petitions without any justification, we
do not think, we would be justified in
interfering with the discretion exercised by
the High Court in dismissing the writ
petitions which were filed only for the
purpose of obtaining the refund....in view of
the above, the petition is liable to be
dismissed as not maintainable and it is
dismissed accordingly...."

8. In our view, the relief claimed in
the present writ petition is same as in the
earlier writ petition and as such this is the
second writ petition for the same cause of
action and even otherwise, if the petitioner
has not claimed the relief in the earlier writ
petition which he ought to have claimed, he
cannot maintain the present writ petition. It
is, accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2020)12ILR A488
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.10.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE NAHEED ARA MOONIS, J.
THE HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

Writ - C No. 17081 of 2020

M/s S.S. Co., Dist. Bijnor & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
D.M./Collector Bijnor & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Mohd. Afzal

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Ms. Sudha Pandey

(A)
Civil
law-
Securitisation
and
Reconstruction
of
Financial
Assets
and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 -
Section 14 - contemplates for handing over
possession of the property to the secured
creditor - proceeding under Section 14 of the
Act is a consequential action of Section 13 (4)
of the Act - where a statute provides
efficacious and adequate remedy, the High
Court will do well in not entertaining a petition
under Article 226. On misplaced consideration,
statutory procedures cannot be allowed to be
circumvented. (Para - 3,7)

Challenging the order of the District Magistrate,
Bijnor dated 05.03.2020 passed under Section
14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security
Interest Act, 2002. (Para - 2)

Held: - Declined to entertain the present petition and
relegate the petitioners to pursue the alternative
remedy as available to them under the law. (Para - 11)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited: -

1. United Bank of India Vs Satyawati Tondon &
ors., (2010) 8 SCC 110

2. Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev & ors. Vs St. of
Mah. & ors., (2011) 2 SCC 782

3. Standard Chartered Bank Vs Noble Kumar &
ors.,
(2013)
9
SCC
620