# Triloki Singh v. State of U.P. &

- **Citation:** (2009) 1 ILRA 279
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2009-04-01
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.55336 of 2006
- **Bench:** S.R. Alam, Sudhir Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/triloki-singh-v-state-of-u-p-41362
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Sri V.P. Varshney
Sri Yogendra Kumar Yadav
Sri Amrit Lal Yadav
Sri R.K. Tiwari
Sri M.A. Qadir
S.C.

High Court Rule-Chapter XII-Rule 7Successive
writ
Petition-misleading
Court by twisting and camouflage can
not be ignored-petition dismissed with
exemplary cost of Rs.10,000/-.

Held: Para 15

We do not find any merit in this writ
petition. On the contrary, we find that
the petitioner is guilty of not only filing
successive writ petition but also of
misleading this Court by twisting and
camouflages. Such an approach by the
petitioner who is well educated person
and had good legal assistance also is
nothing but gross abuse of the process of
law besides wastage of Court's precious
time which could have been utilized for
deciding other deserving cases. Such an
attitude of the litigant deserves to be
curbed. It is a fit case where this Court
must impose exemplary costs so that
such persons may deter from wasting
precious public time which may be
utilized for other substantial matters
where the litigants are waiting for their
turn to get justice.
Case law discussed:
1996 (3) ESC 186, Writ petition No. 34 of 1996
(SB) (Dr. Triloki Singh Vs. State of U.P. &
others), 2292 of 1997 (Dr. Yogendra Pratap
Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others),
A.I.R. 1996 SC 2687; A.I.R. 1997 SC 1005;
A.I.R. 1998 SC 1297=1998 (3) SCC573, 2006
(2) AWC 1545, A.I.R. 2007 SC 1151, , AIR
2005 SC 565 (Para-12, AIR 2006 SC 1142
(Para-8).

## Text

1 All] Dr. Khetpal Singh V. State of U.P. and others
279
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.04.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.R. ALAM, J.
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.55336 of 2006

Dr. Khetpal Singh

...Petitioner

Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri V.P. Varshney
Sri Yogendra Kumar Yadav
Sri Amrit Lal Yadav
Sri R.K. Tiwari
Sri M.A. Qadir
S.C.

High Court Rule-Chapter XII-Rule 7Successive
writ
Petition-misleading
Court by twisting and camouflage can
not be ignored-petition dismissed with
exemplary cost of Rs.10,000/-.

Held: Para 15

We do not find any merit in this writ
petition. On the contrary, we find that
the petitioner is guilty of not only filing
successive writ petition but also of
misleading this Court by twisting and
camouflages. Such an approach by the
petitioner who is well educated person
and had good legal assistance also is
nothing but gross abuse of the process of
law besides wastage of Court's precious
time which could have been utilized for
deciding other deserving cases. Such an
attitude of the litigant deserves to be
curbed. It is a fit case where this Court
must impose exemplary costs so that
such persons may deter from wasting
precious public time which may be
utilized for other substantial matters
where the litigants are waiting for their
turn to get justice.
Case law discussed:
1996 (3) ESC 186, Writ petition No. 34 of 1996
(SB) (Dr. Triloki Singh Vs. State of U.P. &
others), 2292 of 1997 (Dr. Yogendra Pratap
Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others),
A.I.R. 1996 SC 2687; A.I.R. 1997 SC 1005;
A.I.R. 1998 SC 1297=1998 (3) SCC573, 2006
(2) AWC 1545, A.I.R. 2007 SC 1151, , AIR
2005 SC 565 (Para-12, AIR 2006 SC 1142
(Para-8).

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.R. Alam, J.)

1.

Heard
Shri
Anil
Kumar
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner at great length, Shri V.P.
Varsheney, learned counsel for the U.P.
Public Service Commission assisted by
Shri Yogendra Kumar Yadav and learned
Standing Counsel.

2. The petitioner by means of the
present petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution has sought the following
relief:

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents to treat the petitioner selectee
and to provide the appointment on the
post in question.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents to pay the salary to the
petitioner according to law with all
emoluments month to month.

(iii) Issue any other writ, relief to
which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
and proper may be awarded in favour of
petitioner."

3. The facts which are not disputed,
as apparent from the record are that in
1989 U.P. Public Service Commission
280 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
published an advertisement for making
recruitment to the post of Homoeopathic
Medical Officers inviting application
from the recognized Degree and Diploma
Holders in Homeopathy. It appears that
the aforesaid advertisement also provided
that the Degree Holders shall be given
preference in making selection over the
Diploma Holders. The said condition was
challenged in some of the writ petitions.
In Dr. Sheo Narayan Singh and others
Vs. State of U.P. and others, 1996 (3)
ESC 186, a Division Bench of this Court
held that the said preference is valid and
the Degree Holders can be given
preference over to the diploma Holders.
The selection was finalized and the
result/select list was declared on 16th
September, 1996 containing names of 84
candidates. The final selection was
challenged in several writ petitions before
this Court as Allahabad as well as at
Lucknow. Writ petition No. 34 of 1996
(SB) (Dr. Triloki Singh Vs. State of
U.P. & others) filed before the Lucknow
Bench of this Court. The Division Bench
on 9th January 1996 granted time to the
respondents to file counter affidavit and
observed that the appointment made, if
any, shall be subject to the further orders
of this Court. Some of the writ petitions
were filed at Allahabad, namely, writ
petition no. 9653 of 1996, (Dr. Jagat
Prakash and another Vs. State of U.P. and
othes) and writ petition No. 9086 of 1997
(Dr. Arun Kumar Saxena Vs. State of
U.P. and others). Both the writ petitions
filed at Allahabad were dismissed by a
Division Bench on 19th March, 2002 on
the ground that the petitioners have
challenged selection of 1989 without
impleading the persons who have been
selected and they are necessary parties
and, therefore, in the absence of such
persons, the writ petitions challenging the
selection is not maintainable. It is
submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that in writ petition No.9653 of
1996, he has filed recall application which
is pending.

4. However, so far as the judgment
of this Court in Writ Petition No. 9086 of
1997 is concerned, the same has attained
finality as neither any application for
recall of such order is pending before this
Court nor we are informed that any appeal
was taken before the Apex Court.

5. In the meantime, one more writ
petition i.e. No.2292 of 1997 (Dr.
Yogendra Pratap Singh and others Vs.
State of U.P. and others) filed by some
persons who were holding degree in
Homeopathy came up before this Court
complaining that some of the persons who
were Diploma Holders were also selected
though the advertisement provided for
preference to the Degree Holders, and the
petitioner in that writ petition being
Degree Holder was not selected though he
was entitled for preference. This Court
vide its judgment dated 31st January, 2001
allowed the writ petition observing that
since the preference to Degree Holders
was upheld by this Court in the case of
Dr.
Sheo
Narain
Singh
(supra),
therefore, it was incumbent upon the
Commission to act according to the said
condition of advertisement and to the
extent Diploma Holders were declared
successful in the select list of 1995, the
vacancies, if any available, may be made
available to the Degree Holders also. The
writ petition, therefore, was allowed with
the following directions:

"It is not clear out of 80 posts, how
many posts have been filled by the
Diploma Holders. The petitioners to the
1 All] Dr. Khetpal Singh V. State of U.P. and others
281
extent of the posts, which have been filled
by the Diploma Holders are entitled to be
given appointment to the posts of
Homoeopathic
Medical
officers,
in
accordance with merit amongst the
Degree Holders.

Sri
Pushpendra
Singh,
learned
counsel for the commission submitted that
the posts are not vacant. Sri Raj Mani
Chaudhary has filed counter affidavit on
behalf of the State Government and in
para 9 of the counter affidavit it has been
stated that 47 posts of the Homeopathic
Medical officers are lying vacant at
present in which two posts are of female
Homeopathic Medical Officers is also
included.

The writ petition is allowed and the
petitioners
shall
be
considered
for
appointment to the posts of Homoeopathic
Medical Officers, keeping in view the
above observations. The respondent no. 1
shall pass appropriate order within one
month of production of certified copy of
this order.
Sf/-Sudhir Narain
Sd./-Bhagwan Din"
Dt. 31.1.2001"

6. The present petitioner Dr. Khetpal
Singh in 2005 filed a writ petition
No.67559 of 2005 (Dr. Khetpal Singh
Rajpoot Vs. State of U.P. & others) with
the following reliefs:

"1. A writ, direction or order in the
nature of writ of certiorari quashing the
impugned
result
dated
16.9.1995
(Annexure-8 of the writ petition) on the
basis of substantial question raised in
para 7 of the petition.

2. A writ, direction or order in the
nature of writ of certiorari declaring the
Rule 8 of the U.P. Homeopathic Medical
Service Rules 1990 ultravires (Annexure 5
of petition) on the basis of resolution
dated 9-3-1990 communicated vide letter
dated
31.1.1991
(Annexure-11
of
petition), letter of respondent no. 1
(Annexure-4 of the petition), and consent
of respondent no. 3 itself (Annexure-6 of
the petition).

3. A writ, direction or order in the
nature of writ of mandamus directing the
respondents to delete the Rule 8 from
U.P. Homeopathic Medical Service Rules,
1990.

4. A writ, direction or order in the
nature of writ of mandamus directing the
respondents to treat B.M.S. equivalent in
respect of appointment in service and in
service condition, on the basis of
aforesaid Resolution and consent.

5. A writ, direction or order in the
nature of writ of mandamus directing the
respondents to appoint the petitioner on
the post in question.
Or

Any other writ, order or direction to
the respondents to protect the right and
justice of the petitioner and compensating
the damage of the petitioner of being
deprived of so many years its legal right
of appointment on the post in question.

6. Any other relief which this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper
may be awarded in favour of the
petitioner.

7. The cost of the petition may also
be awarded in favour of the petitioner."

7. The said writ petition was heard
by a Division Bench and was dismissed
vide judgment dated 25.10.2005 on the
ground of laches as well as non-joinder of
necessary parties. It would be appropriate
to reproduce the said order, which is as
under:-
282 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009

"This is a writ petition against
selection made in year 1996.

We have heard counsel for the
petitioner, the standing counsel and Sri
V.P. Varshney for the respondents.

This writ petition has been filed after
ten years of the selection. The persons
who have been selected are not impleaded
as party. In the circumstances, it is not a
fit case to interfere.

The writ petition is dismissed.
Sd./- Yatindra Singh, J.
Sd./- R.K. Rastogi, J.
Dated: 25.10.2005"

8. Thereafter, the petitioner now has
filed the present writ petition. Comparing
the reliefs sought in the earlier writ
petition and the present one, we find that
the relief Nos. 4 and 5 in the earlier
petition are similar to that of the present
writ petition. The submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the
present writ petition is not based on the
similar facts and reliefs but cause of
action is different and relief is also
different, is not correct and in fact
contrary to record. We find that the relief
sought in this writ petition in substance
included the relief sought in the earlier
writ petition which has already been
dismissed. Besides seeking mandamus for
appointment and treating the petitioner in
service, in the earlier writ petition, he also
challenged the select list as well as vires
i.e. validity of Rule 8 (2) of the Service
Rules and further mandamus to appoint
him. Mere exclusion of some relief sought
in the earlier writ petition which has
already been decided and seeking in
substance similar relief in successive
petition would not make the second
petition different from the earlier one. It is
now well settled that successive writ
petitions for the same cause of action are
not
maintainable
and
cannot
be
entertained by this Court as held in
Buddhi Kota Subbarao Vs. Dr. V.K.
Parasaran and others, A.I.R. 1996 SC
2687; T.N. Eclectricity Board and
another Vs. N. Raju Reddiar and
another, A.I.R. 1997 SC 1005; K.K.
Modi Vs. K.N. Modi and others, A.I.R.
1998
 SC 1297=1998 (3) SCC573
and Major Jasbinder Singh Bala Vs.
IInd A.D.J., Ghaziabad & others, 2006
(2) AWC 1545.

9. In fact, we find that not only the
relief and prayer sought by the petitioner
in the present writ petition is similar
which was made in the earlier one but in
fact in a camouflage manner, the second
writ petition has been drafted covering the
issue which this Court has already
declined.

10. Chapter XII Rule 7 of the Rules
of the Court does not permit filing of
second writ petition in respect of same
relief.

11. Besides it, we also find that the
petitioner is guilty of serious delay and
laches. It is not in dispute that selection
was notified in 1989 which was finalized
in the year 1995 and the appointments
pursuant to the said selection have already
been made long back. The present writ
petition has been filed in September 2006.
The petitioner is seeking selection and
appointment
pursuant
to
the
advertisement made in the year 1989 i.e.
after 17 years.

12. Instead of referring to the catena
of decision on this question, we propose
to
mention
a
recent
decision
in
Vyalikaval
House
Building
Co-op.
Society Vs. V. Chandrappa and others,
1 All] Dr. Khetpal Singh V. State of U.P. and others
283
A.I.R. 2007 SC 1151, wherein the Apex
Court after referring earlier judgments on
the point, has said where the petitioner is
guilty of serious delay and laches, he lose
his substantive right to get relief from the
Court; and under Article 226 of the
Constitution, the Court cannot ignore the
matter of delay and laches; and in case
where the petitioner is found guilty of
such laches, the writ petition has to be
dismissed.

13. Even on merits, we do not find
any reason to interfere and in our view the
issues having already been settled at rest,
this
writ
petition
is
thoroughly
misconceived
and
ill
advised.
The
petitioner is admittedly a Diploma Holder.
The question as to whether the Degree
Holders can be validly given preference
over the Diploma Holders, has been
settled favourably by the Division Bench
in Dr.Sheo Narain Singh (Supra) which
has been held valid in Dr. Yogendra
Pratap Singh (supra). Once that issue has
already been finalized, and the petitioner
being Diploma Holder was not selected,
he has no right to rake up the same issue
again and again by filing successive writ
petitions.

14. Further submission that since
some of the Diploma Holders have been
selected, the petitioner should also have
been
selected
is
also
thoroughly
misconceived.
Petitioner's
counsel
submitted that he derived this fact for the
first time from the judgment of this Court
in Dr. Yogendra Pratap Singh (Supra)
and, therefore, to this extent the cause of
action arose to him only in 2005 and writ
petition filed in 2006 is not bad on
account of delay and laches. The
submission is thoroughly misconceived. It
appears that the petitioner has completely
failed to appreciate consequences of
judgment in Dr. Yogendra Pratap Singh
(supra). This Court did not approve
selection and appointment of Diploma
Holders without considering the question
of preference to other Degree Holders but
what it said is that if some Diploma
Holders have actually been appointed in
that case to the extent vacancies are
available, the degree Holders in the light
of the conditions of advertisement be
considered
for
appointment.
This
judgment therefore firstly do not apply
and provide any assistance to the
petitioner who is not a degree Holder and
secondly merely because some Diploma
Holders were appointed, the petitioner
cannot claim suo motu selection. It is not
his case that the Diploma Holders selected
were less meritorious to the petitioner
and, therefore, the petitioner be deemed to
have been selected. In the absence of any
such averment and material on record, if
some Diploma Holders having higher
merits are selected, the petitioner cannot
have any complaint. Thirdly, if some
mistake has been committed by the
respondent
Commission
in
selecting
Diploma Holders though Degree Holders
with the claim of preference were
available, that would not entitle the
petitioner to seek a writ of mandamus
inasmuch as this Court will not issue a
writ of mandamus to the authorities to
commit mistake again and again. It is well
settled that Article 14 of the Constitution
has no application for claiming parity in
respect to an illegal or wrong act. Two
wrongs does not make one right (M/s
Anand Buttons Ltd. etc. Vs. State of
Haryana and others, AIR 2005 SC 565
(Para-12) and Kastha Niwarak G.S.S.
Maryadit, Indore Vs. President, Indore
Development Authority, AIR 2006 SC
1142 (Para-8).
284 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009

15. We do not find any merit in this
writ petition. On the contrary, we find that
the petitioner is guilty of not only filing
successive writ petition but also of
misleading this Court by twisting and
camouflages. Such an approach by the
petitioner who is well educated person
and had good legal assistance also is
nothing but gross abuse of the process of
law besides wastage of Court's precious
time which could have been utilized for
deciding other deserving cases. Such an
attitude of the litigant deserves to be
curbed. It is a fit case where this Court
must impose exemplary costs so that such
persons may deter from wasting precious
public time which may be utilized for
other substantial matters where the
litigants are waiting for their turn to get
justice.

16. The writ petition is, therefore,
dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.03.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30188 of 2008

Satendra Singh

...Petitioner

Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri K.R.Sirohi
Sri Ramesh Pundir
Smt. Rekha Pundir
Sri Brijesh Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.S.Diwakar
Sri Govind Saxena
Sri Raj Kumar
S.C.

Punchayat Raj Act 1947-Section 95 (g)-
ceasure of financial Power of elected
village
Pradhan-order
passed
by
authority
other
than
the
Distt.
Magistrate- Preliminary as well as final
Inquiry conducted by same authority-
even the explanation given by Pradhan
not
considered-
held-the
authorities
acted wholly arbitrary manner-order not
sustainable- cost of Rs.50,000/- imposed

Held: Para 19

Democracy in out country begins at the
grass root level with elections of Gram
Pradhan in villages and the same is the
very foundation of out democracy. No
doubt, the District Magistrate has the
power to either cease the financial and
administrative
powers
or
oust
the
democratically elected Gram Pradhan
under Section 95 (1) (g) of the Act, but
the said power is to be exercised with
utmost caution and not in a routine
manner at the whims and fancies of the
administrative
authorities,
without
following
the
procedure
prescribed
under the Act and the Rules. The present
case is a glaring example where action
has been taken in gross violation of the
Act and the Rules of 1997 framed
thereunder and a democratically elected
Pradhan has been wrongly kept away
and deprived of this elected office for
several months.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.)

1. The petitioner is an elected
Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Sapnawat,
District Ghaziabad. By an order dated
14.3.2008
passed
by
the
District
Magistrate, Ghaziabad the financial and
administrative powers of the petitioner
had been ceased. Challenging the said
order, the petitioner filed writ petition no.
16368 of 2008 in which a detailed
reasoned interim order dated 01.4.2008