2020 (2) TMI 799 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of petition - petitioner has not disclosed the earlier writ petition filed by him - It is also submitted that necessary parties such as Lucknow Development Authority and U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad have not been impleaded in the writ petition - HELD THAT - The grievance of the petitioner appears to be against Lucknow Development Authority as well as Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad who have not been impleaded in the writ petition. Moreover, the petitioner has not disclosed his credentials as well as the cause of action accrued to him to maintain the writ petition. The writ petition is not maintainable and is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition due to non-disclosure of necessary parties and lack of credentials by the petitioner.
2. Failure of the petitioner to implead relevant parties in the writ petition.
3. Dismissal of the writ petition on grounds of frivolousness and lack of cause of action.

Analysis:
1. The High Court addressed the issue of maintainability of the writ petition due to the non-disclosure of necessary parties and lack of credentials by the petitioner. The counsel for the opposite parties argued that the petition was frivolous and not maintainable as the necessary parties, Lucknow Development Authority and Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, were not impleaded in the petition. Additionally, it was highlighted that the petitioner failed to disclose his credentials and cause of action, rendering the petition unsustainable. The Court found merit in these arguments and concluded that the writ petition was not maintainable, leading to its dismissal.

2. Another crucial issue discussed was the failure of the petitioner to implead relevant parties in the writ petition. The Court noted that the petitioner's grievance appeared to be against Lucknow Development Authority and Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, who were not included in the petition. This omission of essential parties raised concerns about the completeness and validity of the petition. The Court emphasized the importance of impleading all relevant parties in a petition to ensure a comprehensive and fair adjudication of the matter. Due to the absence of these parties, the Court further supported the dismissal of the writ petition.

3. The Court also deliberated on the dismissal of the writ petition on grounds of frivolousness and lack of cause of action. The counsel for the opposite parties contended that the petition was frivolous, citing the petitioner's failure to disclose his earlier writ petition and the lack of fresh notice before filing the current petition. Moreover, it was highlighted that the petitioner had another pending writ petition related to the same matter, indicating a potential abuse of the legal process. Considering these factors, the Court found the writ petition to lack a valid cause of action and dismissed it accordingly. The Court's decision was based on the principles of fairness, procedural compliance, and the need for a genuine legal basis to maintain a writ petition.

In conclusion, the High Court of Allahabad dismissed the writ petition due to the non-disclosure of necessary parties, the petitioner's failure to implead relevant parties, and the petition's frivolous nature lacking a valid cause of action. The judgment underscored the importance of procedural diligence, completeness of pleadings, and adherence to legal requirements in maintaining a writ petition before the Court.