BALJORA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Arjun Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

(2.) This is a thoroughly ill-advised and misconceived writ petition. Admittedly, petitioner was advanced two loans and committed default in respect to both. He came to this Court in Writ Petitions No. 17998 of 2012 and 17999 of 2012 and on an undertaking of petitioner through his counsel expressed before this Court and with the consent of counsels for the parties, both writ petitions were disposed of finally by two separate judgments dated 11.04.2012. The petitioner committed default in compliance of conditions contained in judgments dated 11.04.2012, as a result whereof respondents have initiated recovery proceedings in question. In both the judgments it was clearly mentioned that in case of non-compliance of any of the conditions contained in those judgments, the writ petitions shall stand dismissed with costs which was quantified in those orders. It was further provided that outstanding dues dues shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue and respondents shall be free to undertake coercive process. It was also mentioned therein that petitioner give another undertaking, not to challenge such proceedings since they would have revived due to default committed by petitioner in observance of conditions contained in this Court's judgments which were passed on the undertaking given by petitioner and with consent of both parties pursuant to such undertaking.

(3.) Moreover, the effect and consequence is flowing from two final judgments of this Court cannot be arrested or restricted by passing a fresh judicial order in a fresh writ petition and, in my view, this writ petition even otherwise is not maintainable.