Court No. - 37
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5699 of 2019 Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 31 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Vijai Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Singh,Anand Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Anand Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
By means of this writ petition the petitioner has made the following prayers:
"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to competent authorities to make recovery of amount, which have been paid to the respondent No.10 to 24 in the shape of their salary and arrears of salary as Rs. 50/- Lakhs +etc. and also recover the amount as Rs.4/- Lakhs from G.P.F. account, which have been misappropriated by the Principal, Mr. Shyam Bihari Tiwari (respondent no.9) as apparent by the enquiry report submitted by the then Principal Secretary.
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to competent authorities to take appropriate action against guilty officials/officers, Manager/Principal and teachers/employees in pursuance of order dated 05.10.2007 and 28.05.2018 passed by concerned Secretary of State Government in compliance of order passed by this Hon'ble Court.
(c) Issue a writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(d) Award the cost of writ petition in favour of the petitioner."
The petitioner claims that he is a life member of a society which runs the Institution, namely, Shri Langtoo Baba Intermediate College, Harihan Kala, District Ballia. The said institution is stated to be an aided Intermediate College governed by the provisions of U.P.Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and Act No.5 of 1982 as well as Act No.24 of 1971.
The petitioner has made several allegations of grave financial irregularities. The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No.59998 of 2017 wherein similar allegations had been made and this Court took cognizance of the claim of the petitioner and directed the Principal Secretary to look into the matter. However, the writ petition was directed to be listed at a subsequent date.
While issuing a direction to the Principal Secretary to look into the grievance of the petitioner, the writ petition was listed for disposal. This order was challenged by means of Special Appeal No.563 of 2018 and the appeal was disposed of by setting aside the order dated 22.5.2018 with the observation that the learned Single Judge is first required to examine the preliminary objection raised by the appellants-respondents about the maintainability of the writ petition. Pursuant thereto the learned Single Judge was looking into the dispute but the petitioner withdrew the writ petition with the liberty to seek appropriate remedy under the law.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgements of Division Bench of this Court in the case of C.M Janta Inter College & another Vs. State of U.P. and others (Special Appeal No.337 of 2017) decided on 5.7.2017, Salauddin Vs. State of U.P. and others (Special Appeal No.266 of 2015) decided on 1.5.2015, Devi Prasad Misrha Vs. State of U.P. and others (Special Appeal No.89 of 2006) decided on 11.7.2006 and in the case of Banwari Lal Upadhyay Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2009(1)) ADJ 438.
The aforesaid judgments are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Once the petitioner withdrew the writ petition and no reason having been assigned, the petitioner cannot be permitted to file this writ petition on the same issue. That apart, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner being life member of the society from which the Committee of Management is constituted, he has no right to file this writ petition. If the petitioner is the life member of the society, he can persuade the Committee of Management to take necessary action but he himself has no locus standi to challenge.
I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and in my considered view, since the petitioner has himself withdrawn that writ petition on the same issue, he cannot be allowed to file the present writ petition.
The writ petition is mis-conceived and not maintainable. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019 SKM