Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5049 of 2019 Petitioner :- Inami Singh Chaudhary Respondent :- District Magistrate Bulandshahar And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ruduvant Pratap Singh,Hare Krishna Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondents no. 1 & 2 to decide the application/complaint of the petitioner dated 27.11.2018 and 18.08.2018 and comply the order dated 12.08.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in Writ petition No. 30868 of 2008 on spot.
(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondents not to interfere in peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute."
Heard Sri R.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Moti Lal, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent no. 3 is interfering with his possession, in violation of an order of status quo dated 12.08.2008, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 30868 of 2008 that relates to the same property, between the same parties, and arises from consolidation proceedings.
The learned Standing Counsel has opposed the motion to admit this petition to hearing.
A perusal of the prayer made in this petition shows that what the petitioner virtually seeks through the first prayer is an enforcement of the order dated 12.08.2008, in one part of that relief. For the said relief the petitioner has remedy elsewhere that may lie in a petition for contempt, or a further application in the writ petition where that interim order has been passed. There is no principle known to law where a mandamus can be issued to enforce an interim order passed by this Court earlier inter partes, in another writ petition. So far as the direction to decide applications/complaints dated 27.11.2018 and 18.08.2018 is concerned, it is also to the effect of seeking enforcement of the interim order dated 12.08.2008 passed by this Court. It is also not the law that this Court may leave to the mercy of a Sub Divisional Magistrate, the enforcement of its orders, as already indicated. The petitioner has remedies to seek enforcement of the interim order dated 12.08.2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 30868 of 2008. It is certainly not through the decision of an application or representation made to a Sub Divisional Magistrate. The first prayer is, therefore, misconceived and liable to be rejected.
So far as the second prayer is concerned it is a well accepted principle of law that a mandamus cannot be issued to a private party for enforcement of private rights; though it may be issued to a private party for the enforcement of public rights or public duties. What the petitioner seeks by the second prayer is in effect an order of injunction against respondent no. 3; that relief cannot be granted. Moreover, that would amount to duplication and again a round about way to enforce an interim order of this Court earlier made between parties, regarding which it has been said above that the remedy of a further writ petition is misconceived.
Looking to the said facts none of the reliefs, claimed by the petitioner here, can be granted.
It is, however, made clear that whatever has been said in this judgment does in no way affect the rights of the petitioner or the other party in any manner. Relief here is being declined on account of the fact that this petition for the reliefs claimed is not maintainable. There is no expression of opinion on merits. The petitioner is free to pursue his remedies as may be advised.
This petition, subject to what has been said, fails and is dismissed in limine.
Order Date :- 26.2.2019 BKM/-