# Shahnawaz Ali v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 1370
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-04-24
- **Case number:** Writ -C No. 1782 of 2024
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shahnawaz-ali-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51808
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

C.S.C., Gaurav Mehrotra, Nirankar Singh

The
Uttar
Pradesh
High
Courts
Amalgamation Order, 1948-Clause 14Petitioner has filed as many as four Writ
Petitions at Allahabad- two of which are still
pending- root cause for filing all the writ
4 All. Shahnawaz Ali Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1371
petitions is a challenge to the Caste Certificate
issued to the petitioner-all the writ petitions
have been filed challenging various orders- all
of which essentially emanate from the same
root
cause-present
writ
petition
filed
challenging the validity of three orders- two
of which were passed at places falling within
the exclusive territorial jurisdiction sitting at
Allahabad-third order has been passed by the
State
Level
Caste
Certificate
Scrutiny
Committee at Lucknow- which falls within the
territorial jurisdiction of this Court sitting at
Allahabad-it would not be proper for this
Court sitting at Lucknow to entertain the 5th
Writ Petition filed by the petitioner at
Lucknow during pendency of two earlier writ
petitions filed by him at Allahabad- Clause 14
of Order, 1948 -provides that the Chief
Justice may in his discretion order that any
case or class of cases arising in the said areas
shall be heard at Allahabad. matter be placed
before the Hon'ble Chief Justice. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1370 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Section 8 and 9 of the Act. Explanation to
Section 3(1) of the Act reads as follows:-

"3(1) No person shall convert or
attempt to convert, either directly or
otherwise, any other person from one
religion to another by use or practice of
misrepresentation, force, undue influence,
coercion, allurement or by any fraudulent
means. No person shall abet, convince or
conspire such conversion.
Explanation:- For the purposes of
this
sub-section
conversion
by
solemnization of marriage or relationship
in the nature of marriage on account of
factors enumerated in this sub-section shall
be deemed included."

18. Explanation goes to show that
conversion is not only required for the
purpose of marriage, but it is also
required in all relationship in the nature
of marriage, therefore, Conversion Act
applies to relationship in the nature of
marriage
or
live-in-relationship.
Petitioners have not yet applied for
conversion as per provisions of Section 8
and 9 of the Act, hence, the relationship
of petitioners cannot be protected in
contraventions of the provisions of law.

19. Certainly, the Courts have
power to interpret the provisions of law if
there is ambiguity in the provisions of
law, but, the above mentioned law is
explicit which mandates that conversion
is required not only in cases of inter-caste
marriages but relationship in the nature of
marriage, hence, Courts should refrain
from embarking upon the interpretation
of law in any sense when the law is very
explicit.

20. While applying the principles
laid down in various pronouncements by
Hon'ble the Apex Court, it gives guidelines
to the fact that couple must be of legal age
to marry and qualified to enter into legal
marriage including being unmarried and
they must be akin to spouse for significant
period of time. No proof of joint account,
financial security, joint property or joint
expenditure is produced before this Court.
Petitioners have not applied for conversion
so far. Till date, no F.I.R. has been lodged
by the parents of any of the petitioner,
therefore, there is no challenge to the
relationship of petitioners.

21. In view of the discussions as
above, it is not considered desirable that
relationship of the petitioners be protected
in contravention of the statutory provisions
of law passed by legislature, hence, petition
has no force and is liable to be dismissed
and is dismissed accordingly.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 1370
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.04.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ -C No. 1782 of 2024

Shahnawaz Ali ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Vipul Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Gaurav Mehrotra, Nirankar Singh

The
Uttar
Pradesh
High
Courts
Amalgamation Order, 1948-Clause 14Petitioner has filed as many as four Writ
Petitions at Allahabad- two of which are still
pending- root cause for filing all the writ
4 All. Shahnawaz Ali Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1371
petitions is a challenge to the Caste Certificate
issued to the petitioner-all the writ petitions
have been filed challenging various orders- all
of which essentially emanate from the same
root
cause-present
writ
petition
filed
challenging the validity of three orders- two
of which were passed at places falling within
the exclusive territorial jurisdiction sitting at
Allahabad-third order has been passed by the
State
Level
Caste
Certificate
Scrutiny
Committee at Lucknow- which falls within the
territorial jurisdiction of this Court sitting at
Allahabad-it would not be proper for this
Court sitting at Lucknow to entertain the 5th
Writ Petition filed by the petitioner at
Lucknow during pendency of two earlier writ
petitions filed by him at Allahabad- Clause 14
of Order, 1948 -provides that the Chief
Justice may in his discretion order that any
case or class of cases arising in the said areas
shall be heard at Allahabad. matter be placed
before the Hon'ble Chief Justice. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Prem Prakash Yadav versus Union of India,
(162) ALR 628, (2024) 1 UPLBEC 119

2. Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India,
(2004) 6 SCC 254

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi J.)

1. Heard Shri Sanjay Bhasin
Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Vipul
Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Shri Kuldeep Pati Tripathi, learned
counsel for the Additional Advocate
General assisted by Shri Vivek Kumar
Shukla,
Additional
Chief
Standing
Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5, Shri
Gaurav Mehrotra and Shri Nirankar
Singh, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.6.

2. By means of the instant petition
filed under Article 226 of Constitution of
India, the petitioner has made following
main prayer:-
"To issue a writ order or direction
in the nature of Certiorari quashing the
order dated 14.02.2024 passed by State
Level
Caste
Certificate
Verification
Committee, Department of Social Welfare,
Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow -
Respondent No.2, order dated 15.07.2023
passed by Divisional Appellate Forum for
Caste Certificate Verification Committee,
Saharanpur
Division,
Saharanpur
Respondent No.3 and the order dated
09.06.2023 passed by District Level Caste
Certificate Verification Committee, District
Muzaffarnagar Respondent No.4, which
said orders are morefully annexed as
Annexure
No.1,
Annexure
No.2
and
Annexure No.3 respectively to the Writ
Petition."

3. On the last date of hearing, a
preliminary objection was raised that
earlier the petitioner has filed as many as
four petitions before this Court sitting at
Allahabad and prayer made in this Writ
Petition is for quashing of three orders- (i)
order dated 09.06.2023 passed by the
District Level Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Muzafarnagar, (ii) order dated
15.07.2023 passed by Divisional Level
Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Saharanpur and (iii) order dated 14.02.2023
passed by the State Level Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee. The first two orders
have been passed at Muzaffarnagar, and
Saharanpur, both of which fall outside the
territorial jurisdiction of this Court sitting
at Lucknow. Although the third order dated
14.02.2022 has been passed by the State
Level
Caste
Certificate
Scrutiny
Committee,
which
falls
within
the
territorial jurisdiction of this Court sitting
at Lucknow, as two of the orders have been
passed within the limits of territorial
jurisdiction
of
this
Court
sitting
at
Allahabad and earlier the petitioner has
1372 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
filed as many as four writ petitions at
Allahabad, two of which are still pending,
it would not be proper for this Court sitting
at Lucknow to entertain this writ petition
and the petitioner should file this writ
petition also at Allahabad.

4. Replying to the aforesaid
preliminary objection, Shri Sanjay Bhasin
Senior
Advocate
appearing
for
the
petitioner has submitted that the first writ
petition bearing Writ-C No.20676 of 2023
was filed by the petitioner with the
following main prayers:-

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus commanding
the stay the effect and operation of order
dated 9.6.2023 passed by the District Level
Caste Scrutiny Committee till the disposal
of the stay application filed by the
petitioner in appeal dated 14.6.2023.
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus commanding
the
Regional
Level
Caste
Scrutiny
Committee/appellate authority to decide the
petitioner's
stay
application
dated
14.6.2023 (Annexure 16 to the writ
petition).
(iii) issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus commanding
the
Regional
Level
Caste
Scrutiny
Committee to sent the matter to the
vigilance sell for verification of petitioners
caste certificate as per the provision
contained in government order dated
05.01.1996."

5. Writ-C No.20676 of 2023 was
disposed of by means of an order dated
22.06.2023 passed by a Division Bench of
this Court sitting at Allahabad directing the
Appellate Authority to decide the stay
application of the petitioner within a
week's time.
6. Thereafter, the petitioner filed
Writ C No.23754 of 2023 challenging the
validity of a show cause notice dated
05.07.2023 issued by the Additional
District
Magistrate
(Administration),
Muzaffarnagar requiring the petitioner to
show cause as to why he should not be
removed from the office of Chairman of
Nagar Palika Parishad, Khatauli, District
Muzaffarnagar on the ground that the
aforesaid office was reserved for persons
belonging to Other Backward Classes and
the petitioner had wrongly obtained a
certificate that he belong to Kalal caste
whereas the District Level Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee has found in its order
dated 09.06.2023 that the petitioner does
not belong to the aforesaid backward caste
and he belongs to a general caste.
Consequent to the order dated 09.06.2023
passed
by
the
District
Level
Caste
Certificate
Scrutiny
Committee,
the
Tehsildar, Khatauli had passed an order
dated 12.06.2023 cancelling the Caste
Certificate of the petitioner.

7. Taking into consideration the
fact that the Caste Certificate of the
petitioner certifying that he belong to a
backward caste Kalal had already been
cancelled by the District Level Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee and an
appeal filed against the order of the District
Level Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee
was pending before the Divisional Level
Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, the
writ petition was disposed of expressing the
expectation that the Appellate Authority
will
comply
with
the
order
dated
22.06.2023 passed in Writ-C No.20676 of
2023.

8. Thereafter the respondent No.6
Krishna Pal filed Election Petition No.5 of
2023 before the Election Tribunal/District
4 All. Shahnawaz Ali Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1373
Judge, Muzaffarnagar challenging election
of the petitioner to the post of Chairman,
Nagar Palika Parishad, Khatauli and a
notice of the election petition was issued
to the petitioner. The petitioner then filed
Writ-C No.27653 of 2023 before this
Court sitting at Allahabad, in which an
interim order dated 19.10.2023 was
passed staying further proceedings of
Election Petition. The aforesaid writ
petition is still pending.

9.

Meanwhile,
the
State
Government initiated proceedings under
Section 48 of Nagar Palika Adhiniyam,
1916 for removal of the petitioner from
the office of Chairman, Nagar Palika
Parishad, Khatauli on the ground that he
was not qualified to be elected as an
Other Backward Class candidate and the
administrative and financial powers of
the petitioner as Chairman of Nagar
Palika
Parishad
were
seized.
The
petitioner challenged this order by filing
Writ-C No.44898 of 2023 mainly on the
ground that the issue of the petitioner's
Caste Certificate was sub judice before
the District Level Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee and it was otherwise
not a consideration germane for the
proceedings to be initiated under Section
48 of the Act.

10. It was further contended on
behalf of the petitioner that the Election
Petition was the only course by which his
election could be challenged and an
Election Petition had already been filed and
it had been stayed by the High Court. An
interim order was passed in the aforesaid
writ petition on 16.01.2024 staying the
effect and operation of the impugned order
dated 08/11.03.2023. That writ petition is
also pending consideration before this High
Court sitting at Allahabad.
11. Submission of the learned
Senior
Advocate
appearing
for
the
petitioner is that the subject of all the four
writ petitions was separate and distinct
from the subject matter of this writ petition,
which is the order dated 14.02.2024 passed
by the State Level Caste Certificate
Scrutiny
Committee.
He
has
further
submitted that in furtherance of an order
passed by the State Level Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, a vigilance inquiry
was conducted by the Vigilance Cell at
Lucknow and the report was submitted in
favour of the petitioner on 11.12.2023. The
State Level Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee has passed the impugned order
against the findings of the Vigilance report.
He has further submitted that the entire
proceedings
of
State
Level
Caste
Certificate
Scrutiny
Committee
was
conducted at Lucknow and an order was
also passed at Lucknow and, therefore, the
subject matter of this Writ petition falls
within the exclusive jurisdiction of this
Court sitting at Lucknow.

12.

I
have
considered
the
submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties. What appears from
the material available on record at this
stage is that the petitioner was elected as
Chairman,
Nagar
Palika
Parishad,
Kjhatauli, District Muzaffarnagar, which
was a seat reserved for a candidate
belonging to OBC (Other Backward Class).
The petitioner, on the strength of a Caste
Certificate issued by Tehsildar, Khatauli,
claimed himself to be belonging to Kalal
Caste, which falls within the category
'Other Backward Class'. The respondent
Nos. 6 and 7 raised a challenge against the
petitioner's claim of belonging to Kalal
caste and they contended that he is belongs
to
'Sheikh'
Caste.
The
matter
was
examined by the District Level Caste
1374 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Certificate
Scrutiny
Committee
at
Muzaffarnagar, which passed an order
dated 09.06.2023 holding that the petitioner
belongs to Sheikh caste and he does not
belonged to Kalal Backward Caste. This
order was passed at Muzaffarnagar, which
falls
within
the
exclusive
territorial
jurisdiction
of
this
Court
sitting
at
Allahabad. The petitioner filed an appeal
against
the
aforesaid
order
dated
09.06.2023 passed by the District Level
Caste
Certificate
Scrutiny
Committee
before
the
Divisional
Level
Caste
Certificate
Scrutiny
Committee
at
Saharanpur. During pendency of his appeal,
he filed Writ Petition No.20676 of 2023
referred to above, inter alia seeking a
direction to the Divisional Level Caste
Certificate
Scrutiny
Committee
for
deciding his stay application. This writ
petition was disposed off by means of an
order dated 22.06.2023 passed by a
Division Bench of this Court sitting at
Allahabad.

13. Consequent to the order dated
09.06.2023 passed by the District Level
Caste
Certificate
Scrutiny
Committee
Muzaffarnagar, Tehsildar Khatauli passed
an order dated 12.06.2023 cancelling the
Caste Certificate of the petitioner and
thereafter a notice was issued to the
petitioner to show cause as to why he
should not be removed from the office of
Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad Khatauli,
Muzaffarnagar on the ground that the
District Level Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee has found that he does not
belong to Kalal Backward Caste and
Tehsildar Khatauli had cancelled his Cast
Certificate by means of an order dated
12.06.2023. The petitioner then filed WritC No.23754 of 2023 before this Court at
Allahabad, which was disposed off by a
Division
bench
by
expressing
an
expectation that the Appellate Authority
will
comply
with
the
order
dated
22.06.2023 passed in Writ C No.20676 of
2023.

14. The respondent No.6 filed an
Election Petition before the Election
Tribunal/District
Judge,
Muzaffarnagar
challenging election of the petitioner to the
post of Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad,
Khatauli on the ground that the aforesaid
post was reserved for candidates belonging
to OBC category and the District Level
Caste
Certificate
Scrutiny
Committee
having recorded a finding in its order dated
09.06.2023 that the petitioner does not
belong to Kalal caste and his caste
certificate having been cancelled by the
Tehsildar in furtherance of the aforesaid
order, the petitioner's election to the office
of Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad,
Khatauli,
which
was
reserved
for
candidates belonging to OBC category, is
liable to be set aside. The petitioner then
filed Writ-C No.27653 of 2023 challenging
proceeding of the Election Petition and this
Court sitting at Allahabad has passed an
interim order dated 19.10.2023 staying the
proceedings of the election petition. That
writ petition is pending before this Court
sitting at Allahabad.

15. Meanwhile, proceedings for
removal of the petitioner from the Office of
Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad, Khatauli
have been initiated under section 48 of U.P.
Municipalities Act, 1916 and the petitioner
has filed yet another Writ-C No.44898 of
2023. The effect and operation of the order
dated
08/11.12.2023
whereby
the
administrative and financial powers of the
petitioner as Chairman of Nagar Palika
Parishad, Khatauli have been seized, has
been stayed by a Division Bench of this
Court sitting at Allahabad, the aforesaid
4 All. Shahnawaz Ali Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1375
writ petition is also pending consideration
before this Court sitting at Allahabad.

16. The relevant portion of the
Article 226 of
the Constitution
of
India provides as follows:-

"226. Power of High Courts to
issue certain writs:-
(i) Notwithstanding anything in
Article 32 every High Court shall have
powers, throughout the territories in
relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to
issue to any person or authority, including
in appropriate cases, any Government,
within those territories directions, orders or
writs, including writs in the nature of
habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions,
quo warranto and certiorari, or any of
them, for the enforcement of any of the
rights conferred by Part III and for any
other purpose
(ii) The power conferred by clause
(1) to issue directions, orders or writs to
any Government, authority or person may
also be exercised by any High Court
exercising jurisdiction in relation to the
territories within which the cause of
action, wholly or in part, arises for the
exercise of such power, notwithstanding
that the seat of such Government or
authority or the residence of such person is
not within those territories
(iii)......."
(Emphasis added)

17. A bare perusal of Article 226 of
the Constitution of India makes it manifest
that it confers power upon every High
Court to issue directions, orders or writs
throughout the territories in relation to
which it exercises jurisdiction. Clause (2)
of the Article 226 of the Constitution of
India further provides that the power to
issue directions, orders or writs may be
exercised by any High Court exercising
jurisdiction in relation to the territory
within which the cause of action wholly or
in part arises for exercise of such power. As
the Writ Petition inter alia seeks quashing
of the order dated 14.02.2024 passed by
State Level Caste Certificate Verification
Committee, Department of Social Welfare,
Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow,
undisputedly a part of cause of action for
filing this Writ Petition has accrued within
the territorial jurisdiction of this Court
sitting at Lucknow and, therefore, this
Court sitting at Lucknow has jurisdiction to
entertain the Writ Petition and the Writ
Petition is maintainable here.

18. However, here the question
involved is not of maintainability of the
Writ Petition at Lucknow as a part of cause
of action has undoubtedly accrued within
the territorial jurisdiction of this Court at
sitting Lucknow, the question is of
propriety of this Court exercising its
discretion to entertain the Writ Petition
here, when the root cause for filing the Writ
Petition accrued within the territorial
jurisdiction
of
this
Court
sitting
at
Allahabad and the petitioner has already
filed as many as four Writ Petitions
mentioned above at Allahabad, two of
which are still pending.

19. In Kusum Ingots & Alloys
Ltd. v. Union of India, (2004) 6 SCC 254,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that:
-

"Forum conveniens
30. We must, however, remind
ourselves that even if a small part of cause
of action arises within the territorial
jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by
itself may not be considered to be a
determinative factor compelling the High
1376 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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] .]

20. Shri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent No.6
has placed before this Court a judgment
passed by a Division Bench of this Court in
Prem Prakash Yadav versus Union of
India, (162) ALR 628 = (2024) 1 UPLBEC
119. That Writ Petition was filed before this
Court sitting at Lucknow challenging
validity of a Government Order dated
26.02.2014, whereby approval was given to
revise rates for conversion of Nazul
property into freehold. The petitioner had
also
challenged
a
notification
dated
04.03.2014
issued
by
the
State
Government. A further prayer made was for
protecting the petitioner's possession over
House No.23, Stanley Road, Allahabad. A
preliminary objection was raised against
maintainability of the writ petition at
Lucknow on the ground that the petitioner
had earlier filed a writ petition at Allahabad
praying
for
a
writ
of
mandamus
commanding the respondents to execute a
sale deed in favour of the petitioner in
respect of the aforesaid property, which
writ petition was disposed off by means of
an order dated 19.02.2009. The petitioner
then filed another Writ-C No.15798 of
2010 at Allahabad praying essentially for
the same relief regarding the same property.
The third writ petition was filed at
Lucknow with respect to the same property.
In the aforesaid factual background a
Division Bench of this court held in Prem
Prakash Yadav(Supra) that:-

"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 Clause14 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
Allahabad. 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
4 All. Shahnawaz Ali Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1377
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
same, unless he can provide cogent reasons
for his hopping around. In the present case
the petitioner has not provided any such
reasons."

21. When we examine the facts of
the present case in light of law laid down in
the aforesaid cases, it appears that the root
cause for filing all the writ petitions is a
challenge to the Caste Certificate issued to
the petitioner. All the writ petitions have
been filed challenging various orders, all of
which essentially emanate from the same
root cause. Two writ petitions filed by the
petitioner at Allahabad stand disposed of
and two other writ petitions filed by him
are still pending before this Court at
Allahabad. The present writ petition has
been filed challenging the validity of three
orders, two of which were passed at places
falling within the exclusive territorial
jurisdiction sitting at Allahabad. Although,
the third order has been passed by the State
Level Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee
at Lucknow, which falls within the
territorial jurisdiction of this Court sitting
at Allahabad, when the root cause for filing
all the writ petitions is the same and the
petitioner has already filed four writ
petitions before this Court sitting at
Allahabad, two of which are still pending,
it would not be proper for this Court setting
at Lucknow to entertain the 5th Writ
Petition filed by the petitioner at Lucknow
during pendency of two earlier writ
petitions filed by him at Allahabad.

22. At this stage, Shri Sanjay
Bhasin, learned Senior Advocate for the
petitioner has submitted that as counter
affidavit and rejoinder affidavit in the
present case have already been filed and the
matter is ripe for final hearing and this plea
was not raised in the counter affidavit, it
would not be proper for this Court to refuse
to hear the writ petition finally on the
ground of the writ petition not being
entertainable before this Court sitting at
Lucknow.

23. The mere filing of a counter
affidavit would not affect the demand of
judicial propriety on the part of this Court
sitting at Lucknow to refrain from hearing a
writ petition while two earlier writ petitions
1378 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
filed by the petitioner essentially arising
out of the same root cause are pending
before this Court sitting at Allahabad.

24. The learned Senior Advocate
appearing
for
the
petitioner
lastly
submitted that instead of dismissing the
writ petition and giving a liberty to the
petitioner to file a fresh petition at
Allahabad, this Court should transmit the
record of the present case to Allahabad for
being decided there since the pleadings
have been exchange by the parties. None
of
the
learned Counsel
raised
any
objection against this submission of the
learned Counsel for the petitioner.

25. Clause 14 of the Uttar Pradesh
High Courts Amalgamation Order, 1948
inter alia provides that the Chief Justice
may in his discretion order that any case or
class of cases arising in the said areas shall
be heard at Allahabad.

26. Accordingly, this request of the
learned Counsel for the petitioner is
accepted. Let the matter be placed before
the Hon'ble Chief Justice for passing
appropriate order for transfer of this Writ
Petition to this Court sitting at Allahabad in
terms of Clause 14 of the Amalgamation
Order.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 1378
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. RENU AGARWAL, J.

Writ -C No. 1969 of 2024

Faujiya Bano & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Dharmendra Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
226-Indian
Penal
Code,1860Sections 498 & 504-Petitioners sought
protection
from
Respondent
No.4,
claiming threats and intereference in
their
marriage-Petitioner
no.1

was
previously married to Respondent no.4
under muslim rites, with two children
born out of that union-Respondent no. 4
allegedly issued a triple talaq and ousted
her in 2019-In 2023, Petitioner no.1
remarried petitioner no.2, also under
muslim rites, without obtaining a legal
divorce from Respondent no. 4 and this
marriage was registered-Respondent no.
4 contested the validity of Petitioner
no.1's second marriage, arguing that no
formal decree of divorce was obtained-A
police
report
was
lodged
against
Petitioner no. 2 for enticing petitioner
no.1 and her child-Held, second marriage
entered into without obtaining a formal
decree of divorce from the first spouse is
invalid, even under muslim personal lawThe petitioner(a muslim woman) failed to
produce evidence of a valid divorce(triple
talaq or khula) from her first husbandHence, the petitioners first marriage had
not been legally dissolved,the second
marriage
could
not
be
granted
protection, as it violated sections 494 and
495 IPC-The court declined to issue a
writ
of
mandamus
to
protect
the
petitioner's relationship.(Para 1 to 16)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. D.Velusamy Vs D.Patchajammal (2010) 10
SCC 469

2. Asha Devi & anr. Vs St. of U.P. & ors. Writ C
No. 18743 of 2020

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal, J.)