Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Om Parkash vs Ut Of J&K And Ors on 15 May, 2023
Author: Rahul Bharti
Bench: Rahul Bharti
Sr.No. 122
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
WP(C) No. 1364/2020
c/w
WP(C) No. 1243/2020
Om Parkash ..... Applicant/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Nikhil Narayan Sharma, Advocate.
Vs
UT of J&K and Ors. ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. R. S. Jamwal, AAG.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE
ORDER
15.05.2023 WP(C) No. 1364/2020 c/w WP(C) No. 1243/2020 Writ petition being WP(C) No. 1243/2020 came to be filed by the petitioner in terms whereof he intended to block the operation of Notice No. BDOK/2020-21/507-26 dated 20.07.2022 meant for convening special meeting for removal of Chairman, Block Development Council Khoon district Udhampur read with communication dated 11.07.2020 issued by the Panchayat Members. This writ petition was instituted in July 2020.
The petitioner, thereafter, came up with another writ petition being WP(C) No. 1364/2020 in terms whereof the course of action which originated by virtue of the aforementioned communication dated 20.07.2020 of the Block Development Officer Khoon, district Udhampur with respect to convening of the special meeting for removal of the Chairman, Block Development Council Khoon for challenging the Order no. DPOU/Pyts./BDC/2020-21/1091-98 2 WP(C) No. 1364/2020 c/w WP(C) No. 1243/2020 dated 05.08.2020 passed by the District Panchayat Officer, Udhampur whereby the petitioner stood removed as Chairman of Block Development Council, Block Khoon on 05.08.2020.
In this writ petition being WP(C) No. 1364/2020, the petitioner has no where mentioned, even by any remote reference, the fact of pendency of his already filed writ petition being WP(C) No. 1243/2020 and instead in para 10 of the WP(C) No. 1364/2020, the petitioner has taken the liberty of saying that no other writ petition has been filed on the same facts meaning thereby the petitioner deliberately screened the fact of filing and pendency of the earlier writ petition without first seeking withdrawal of the said writ petition on the count of cause of action accruing in passing of order dated 05.04.2020. Thus, the petitioner by his conduct suffers disentitlement to seek indulgence of this Court by his misrepresentation of facts on his part, as such, both writ petitions are dismissed.
This Court is sparing the petitioner from the burden of heavy costs given the fact the earlier writ petition was filed by different counsel then the subsequent writ petition filed by the different counsel.
Both writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.
(Rahul Bharti) Judge Jammu 15.05.2023 Bunty Whether the order is speaking: Yes/ No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/ No