Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

RAMESH KUMAR SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy.

Summary

Petitioner Ramesh Kumar Singh filed a writ petition seeking mandamus directing the Principal of a Government Industrial Training Institute and the Director of Training and Employment to release his Government Provident Fund of approximately Rs. 33.63 lakh. The court noted that the petitioner had earlier filed a similar writ (Writ‑A No. 5418 of 2026) which was disposed with liberty to make a fresh representation, but the petitioner failed to disclose this prior filing in the present petition. The court held that the present petition constituted a second writ petition filed without proper disclosure, and the petitioner’s counsel sought permission to withdraw. The court, taking a lenient view, allowed the withdrawal and dismissed the petition as withdrawn, granting the petitioner liberty to seek appropriate remedy elsewhere.

Issues considered

  • Whether a second writ petition can be entertained when the petitioner fails to disclose a prior related writ petition.
  • Whether the court should issue mandamus directing the release of the Government Provident Fund in the present circumstances.

Subjects

  • Writ petition
  • Mandamus
  • Government Provident Fund
  • Procedural lapse
  • Withdrawal of petition
  • Prior litigation

Judgment

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                           WRIT - A No. - 13462 of 2026

Ramesh Kumar Singh
                                                                   .....Petitioner(s)
                                       Versus

State Of U.P. And 5 Others
                                                                .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                    :   Saurabh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s)                    :   C.S.C.

Court No. - 6
                    HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.

1. Heard Shri Saurabh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed with the following main prayer:

"I. Issue a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding directing
the respondent No.5 i.e. Principal, Government Industrial Training Institute, Naini,
Prayagraj, to release the payment of Government Provident Fund (GPF) of the
petitioner amounting Rs. 33,63,398/- within a reasoned and stipulated time period to
be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

II. Issue a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding directing
the respondent No. 2 i.e. Director, Training and Employment at Lucknow to assure the
payment of the GPF amounting Rs. 33,63,998/- to the petitioner in pursuance of his
letter dated 28.08.2025, withing a reasoned and stipulated time period to be fixed by
this Hon'ble Court."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed before this Court that
respondent no.5 had not taken any decision regarding the release of the
G.P.F. of the petitioner amounting to Rs. 33,63,398/-.

4. This Court finds that though the petitioner has approached this Court
on previous occasion by way of filing Writ-A No. 5418 of 2026 (Ramesh
Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 5 Others), which was disposed off by
this Court vide its order dated 17.04.2026 with a liberty to the petitioner
to move a fresh representation before the respondent no.5 herein, to
                                                                                           WRIA No. 13462 of 2026
                                                                   2


                                    ventilate his grievance and now again without disclosing the same, during
                                    the course of his argument he has tried to impress upon the Court that
                                    respondent no.5 herein may be directed to release the payment.

                                    5. This Court is of the view that this is a second writ petition and the
                                    petitioner ought to have disclosed at the first given instance the filing of
                                    the previous writ petition, though it was on record, but the petitioner did
                                    not place the same before the Court.

                                    6. At this stage, the counsel for the petitioner, tendering an apology,
                                    submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the present writ petition.

                                    7. Taking a lenient view of the matter, the petitioner is permitted to
                                    withdraw the writ petition, to seek appropriate remedy, as may be
                                    available to him.

                                    8. This writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with the aforesaid
                                    liberty.



                                                                                        (Siddharth Nandan,J.)
                                    September 29, 2026
                                    Sumit K.




Digitally signed by :-
SUMIT KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.