Allahabad High Court
SHRI HARI TRADING COMPANY BHADAU RAJGHAT VARANASI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
A writ petition that duplicates an earlier filing on the same cause of action and is concealed is not maintainable and must be dismissed as not pressed.
Summary
The petitioners, Shri Hari Trading Company and another, filed Writ‑C No. 16116 of 2026 challenging actions of the State of U.P. and others. The respondents, including the State and the Nagar Nigam, pointed out that the petitioners had earlier filed a similar writ, Writ‑C No. 35328 of 2025, on the same cause of action, which the petitioners had concealed. When questioned, the petitioners could not refute this allegation and admitted the earlier filing. The Court held that the present petition was not maintainable because it was essentially a duplicate and not pressed. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as not pressed.
Issues considered
- Whether the present writ petition is maintainable when an earlier petition on the same cause of action exists and has been concealed.
Subjects
- writ petition
- maintainability
- duplicate filing
- civil procedure
- not pressed petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 16116 of 2026
Shri Hari Trading Company Bhadau Rajghat
Varanasi And Another .....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Chandra Kumar Rai
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Dileep Kumar Srivastava
Court No. - 4
HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.
HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the
State respondents and Sri Dileep Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the
Nagar Nigam.
2. Sri Dileep Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the Nagar Nigam, at the
very outset submits that the petitioner had earlier filed Writ-C No. 35328 of
2025 (M/S Shri Hari Trading Company Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) for the
same cause of action, and this fact has been concealed in the present petition.
He, therefore, contends that the present writ petition is not maintainable and
is liable to be dismissed by this Court.
3. Upon a query raised by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner could
not dispute the aforesaid fact and further submits that the present writ
petition may be dismissed as not pressed.
4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed.
May 6, 2026
Gaurav
(Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Neeraj Tiwari,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
GAURAV PATEL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…