Allahabad High Court
Upendra Kumar Yadav vs Union Of India And 4 Others on 13 July, 2022
Author: Sangeeta Chandra
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9105 of 2022 Petitioner :- Upendra Kumar Yadav Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Yadav,Chandra Bali Prasad Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I., ,Akhilesh Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
(1) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2) Shri Shashi Prakash Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Shri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this writ petition. He has pointed out the Page No.98 of the Paper book which is an order passed in Writ Petition filed by the petitioner himself namely Writ-A No.14837 of 2021 [Upendra Kumar Yadav Vs. Union of India and 6 others] decided on 08.11.2021 wherein this Court while placing reliance on Division Bench judgment and order in the case of Rajendra Kumar Mishra Vs. Union of India and others reported in 2005 (1) UPLBEC 108, and subsequent Full Bench decision in Manish Kumar Mishra, Vs. Union of India and 4 Others passed in Writ-A No.2071 of 2017 decided on 01.05.2021, had held that no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court at Allahabad and therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable and hence it is dismissed.
(3) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the Union of India that second writ petition for the same cause of action is not maintainable and held by this Court in Surya Deo Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and others, the Full Bench decision reported in 2006 (1) ADJ 467.
(4) Learned counsel for the petitioner says that in the case of Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs. Union of India reported in 2014 (9) SCC 329, the Supreme Court had held that the petitioner who was claiming disability pension and was staying at Gaya and making a representation from Gaya had a part of cause of action arising within the territorial jurisdiction of High Court at Patna and therefore, his writ petition should have been entertained by the Patna High Court.
(5) The judgment rendered in Nawal Kishore Sharma has been considered by this Court in its Division Bench judgment and Rajendra Kumar Mishra and also in the Full Bench decision in Manish Kumar Mishra (Supra).
(6) This petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
Order Date :- 13.7.2022 PAL