SAT RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Court an unfortunate malpractice has developed lately of filing second or third petition by the same Petitioner for the same relief when relief was not obtained in the first petition. This malpractice has reached such an alarming proportion that now strong steps must be taken to effectively to curb it otherwise the administration of Justice will be seriously affected. When the first petition is filed and it is either dismissed or no stay order is obtained, then thereafter very often a second petition is filed by the same Petitioner for the same relief either without referring to the earlier writ petition or by referring to it in some inconspicuous place in the petition where the Judge may not notice it. and this fact of filing the earlier petition is not disclosed to the Judge in the course of argument. The mention of the earlier writ petition is not made by the counsel in order to protect himself in case this fraud is detected. The time has now come that this malpractice has to be stopped otherwise a series of petitions will be filed by the same Petitioner for the same relief increasing the already heavy load on this Court.

(2.) The Petitioner in the present petition had filed two earlier writ petitions, the first being writ petition No. nil of 1994 Satram and Ors. v. State Bank and Anr. which was disposed by Hon'ble A.K. Banerji, J. by his order dated 8.3.1994. I have been shown a certified copy of this order by the learned Counsel for the Respondent bank Shri A.K. Mishra. By this order, Hon'ble A.K. Banerji, J. granted the Petitioner an opportunity to deposit the amount in four equal instalments. It appears that thereafter a second writ petition was filed by the same Petitioner being writ petition No. 5224 of 1994 Satram and Anr. v. State and Ors., which was dismissed by Hon'ble G.P. Mathur, J. on 9.3.1995 on the ground that the second petition was not maintainable in view of the judgment in the first petition.

(3.) Concealing the fact of the earlier writ petitions, this third writ petition has been filed in this Court and it was only because Shri A.K. Misra, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 Informed me about the earlier two petitions that I came to know about these facts. This petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the Petitioner has suppressed the fact of the earlier two writ petitions. This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.