Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42347 of 2018 Petitioner :- Uma Shankar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjeev Kumar Tyagi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Devi Prasad Mishra
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
The petitioner has instituted this writ petition for the following reliefs:
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to carry out the demolition of illegal construction raised in the campus of Ewing Christian College, Allahabad in pursuance of enquiry report dated 29.05.2017 and order dated 03.07.2018.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Allahabad Development Authority to take appropriate action under Urban Development Act, against the persons, who raised illegal construction over the property of Christian Community in Ewing Christian College, Allahabad campus and Ewing Christian College Institute of Management Gaughat."
In paragraph 8 of the writ petition the petitioner has stated that he is a Christian by religion and have faith in religion, therefore, interested in the public cause to protect the property of Ewing Christian College campus. Paragraph 8 of the writ petition is extracted below:
"That the petitioner is Christian by religion and have faith in religion, therefore, interested in the public cause to protect the property of Ewing Christian College campus. It is further submitted that the petitioner has done various social work of the Christian Community and involved in various organization of the Christian Community, therefore, filed complaint for illegal grabbing the property by the private respondent party."
In the affidavit the petitioner Uma Shanker has disclosed his religion as a Hindu. Part of the affidavit is extracted below:
"Affidavit of Uma Shankar,aged about 43 years, son of Sri Laxmikant, Resident of House NO.52, Kasturipur, Chaubey Ka Pura, Bariharkh, Tehsil Sorav, District Allahabad, Religion Hindu, Occupation Farmer."
In paragraph 33 of the writ petition it is also mentioned that the petitioner has filed detailed representation to the Vice- Chancellor and Registrar of Allahabad University, Allahabad but no action has been taken. A copy of the representation is on the record as Annexure-14 to the writ petition, which shows that the representation has been filed by one Raj Kumar.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the Ewing Christian College has raised several illegal constructions. This fact clearly shows that the petitioner to settle the personal vendetta has preferred this writ petition. We do not approve such type of conduct.
The Supreme Court in the case of T.Arivandandam Vs. T.V.Satyapal and another, AIR 1977 SC 2421 has held that the frivolous petition should be nipped in the bud.
The Supreme Court has sounded a word of caution in its recent judgment in Subrata Roy Sahara Vs. Union of India and others, (2014) 8 SC 470 in the following terms:
"191. The Indian judicial system is grossly afflicted with frivolous litigation. Ways and means need to be evolved to deter litigants from their compulsive obsession towards senseless and ill-considered claims. One needs to keep in mind that in the process of litigation, there is an innocent sufferer on the other side of every irresponsible and senseless claim. He suffers long- drawn anxious periods of nervousness and restlessness, whilst the litigation is pending without any fault on his part. He pays for the litigation from out of his savings (or out of his borrowings) worrying that the other side may trick him into defeat for no fault of his. He spends invaluable time briefing counsel and preparing them for his claim. Time which he should have spent at work, or with his family, is lost, for no fault of his. Should a litigant not be compensated for what he has lost for no fault? The suggestion to the legislature is that a litigant who has succeeded must be compensated by the one who has lost. The suggestion to the legislature is to formulate a mechanism that anyone who initiates and continues a litigation senselessly pays for the same. It is suggested that the legislature should consider the introduction of a "Code of Compulsory Costs"."
After some length of the arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of the Court to withdraw the writ petition.
Having peculiar facts and circumstances of the case we decline the request.
Ordinarily Courts permit the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition but once a writ petition is filed and submissions have been advanced and the Court has expressed its view on the matter, it has discretion to refuse the permission to withdraw the petition, if the Court is satisfied that the prayer to withdraw the writ petition is not bonafide.
Having due regard to the facts of the case that the petitioner has tried to abuse the process of law we dismiss the writ petition with a cost of Rs. 10,000/-. The said cost shall be deposited in the High Court Legal Services Committee within thirty days. In case the petitioner fails to deposit the cost, we direct the Registrar General to send a copy of this order to the District Magistrate to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue.
Learned counsel for the Allahabad Development Authority had failed to point out the aforesaid facts to the Court.
Order Date :- 19.12.2018 MAA/-