Allahabad High Court
Anju Yadav vs State Of Up And 2 Others on 1 August, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:123571 Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22635 of 2024 Petitioner :- Anju Yadav Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Pratap Mishra,Gaurav Chauhan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
1. Heard Sri Brijesh Pratap Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the state-respondents.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-
"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondent No. 2 to approved the proposal of Land Management Committee of Grampanchayat Hajipur Nera, Tehsil Ghiror, District- Mainpuri of dated 14/12/2020 to allot Gata No. 525/0.1150 and Gata No. 831/0.0300 Hect. land in the name of Marriage House (Baratghar) and Public Toilet for getting constructed Baratghar and Public Toilet in Village of Nagla Shivkaran, District-Mainpuri.
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondent No.2 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 04.08.2021 in pursuance of Hon'ble Court's order dated 12.07.2021 in Writ-C No. 15117 of 2021 (Anju Yadav Vs. State of U.P and Others) within stipulated period which may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. (Annexure No.6 ) to this writ petition."
3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the representation of the petitioner which was ordered to be decided, has not been decided by the authorities, accordingly, the petitioner has filed fresh representations also before the authorities which are pending, as such, necessary direction be issued for deciding the representation of the petitioner.
4. Learned Addl. C.S.C. submitted the second petition for the same cause of action is not maintainable in the light of the provisions of Rule 7 Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
6. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of Chapter XXII Rule 7 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 will be relevant which is as under:-
"7. No second application on same facts.- Where an application has been rejected, it shall not be competent for the applicant to make a second application on the same facts."
7. This Court in Writ C No.15117/2021, vide order dated 12.7.2021, had directed to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 12.5.2020 as expeditiously as possible and further prayer no."A" sought in the writ petition was refused.
8. The instant writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for the same relief as was sought in Writ C No.15117/2021.
9. Considering the provisions of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 as well as the prayer made in the earlier petition as well as in the instant petition, this Court cannot entertain the instant petition.
10. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the instant writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
Order Date :- 1.8.2024 C.Prakash