GAYA PRASAD CHAUDHARY Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION MADHYAMIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prakash Padia, learned counsel for the Committee of Management respondent No. 4 and Sri S. Sharma/Sri Sandeep Mukherjee, learned standing counsel for the State.

(2.) According to the petitioner he is live member of the society/ institution and has prayed for writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 to decide the petitioner's representations dated 17.9.1998 and 20.12.1999 (Annexures-3 and 4 to the writ petition). The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate what is the locus standi for getting decision on the representations therefore, the writ petition cannot be adjudicated upon. In similar writ petition this Court on 10.4.2002 in Writ Petition No. 31215 of 1998, Ram Kishore Das v. Director of Education (Secondary), U. P., Allahabad, while dismissing the writ petition has observed as below :

(3.) It is settled proposition of law that a party has to plead the case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate his submissions made in the petition and in case the pleadings are not complete, the Court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas. [Vide Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1988 SC 2181 ; Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. State of Gujarat and Ors., AIR 1998 SC 1608 ; National Building Construction Corporation v. S. Raghunathan and Ors., AIR 1998 SC 2779 ; Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani and Ors., (1999) 1 SCC 141 ; Chitra Kumari v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 2001 SC 1237 ; and State of U. P. and Ors. v. Chandra Prakash Pandey, 2001 (2) AWC 1399 (SC) ; AIR 2001 SC 1298].