Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

SHIV KUMARversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 8 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

A second writ petition for the same cause of relief is not maintainable and must be dismissed.

Summary

Shiv Kumar filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the Assistant Sub‑Divisional Officer, II, Jaunpur to decide an application dated 17‑12‑2016 under Section 229(b) of the U.P. Zila Adalat & Land Revenue Act, 1950, which had remained pending since 2016. He had previously filed a similar writ (Writ C No.36952 of 2019) which was disposed of by the High Court. The Court examined whether a second petition for the same relief could be entertained. Relying on Chapter XXII Rule 7 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, the Court held that a second writ petition on the same cause of action is not maintainable. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

  • Is a second writ petition seeking the same relief maintainable under the Allahabad High Court Rules?

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • mandamus
  • writ petition
  • maintainability
  • second petition
  • administrative law
  • Section 229(b)
  • U.P. Zila Adalat & Land Revenue Act
  • Allahabad High Court Rules

Judgment

                                                  HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                                                                   WRIT - C No. - 17557 of 2026

                                    Shiv Kumar
                                                                                                            .....Petitioner(s)
                                                                                Versus

                                    State Of Uttar Pradesh And 8 Others
                                                                                                          .....Respondent(s)

                                    Counsel for Petitioner(s)               : Shitala Sahay Srivastav, Sudhir Kumar
                                                                              Srivastava
                                    Counsel for Respondent(s)               : C.S.C.

                                    Court No. - 36
                                                         HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

                                    1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

                                    2. This writ petition has been filed seeking following relief :-

                                              "To, Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus direct the
                                              respondent no.2 i.e. the Assistant Sub-Divisional Officer, IInd, Jaunpur to
                                              decide the application dated 17.12.2016 as Computer Case No. D
                                              20131436002431 (Ashwani Kumar vs. Karmraj) Under Section 229(B)
                                              U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 which is pending in the court of Assistant Sub-
                                              Divisional Officer, IInd, Jaunpur, since 2016 within stipulated period."

                                    3. Petitioner has approached this Court earlier also for the same relief by
                                    filing Writ C No.36952 of 2019, which was disposed of by this Court vide
                                    order dated 19.11.2019.

                                    4. In view of Chapter XXII Rule 7 of the Allahabad High Court Rules,
                                    1952, second writ petition for the same cause of relief is not maintainable.

                                    5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.



                                                                                               (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
                                    May 5, 2026
                                    Rishabh




Digitally signed by :-
RISHABH 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.