Ram Sudhar Mishra vs State of U.P. and Others

Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Amod Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of certiorari to quash the impugned list of allotment and reservation of seat and office of Gram Pradhan in commencing Gram-Panchayat Election 2010 in relation to vilalge -Mighauna, Block-Bisalpur District-Pilibhit published on notice board annexed as Annexure No. 1, in pursuance of Government order dated 9 July, 2010 in the interest of Justice.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus commanding and directing to opposite parties, to allot the seat of Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Mighauna, Block-Bisalpur, District - Pilibhit as per rotation process for General Class or Mahila General as provided in Section 4 Sub-section 4 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Allotment and Reservation of seats and officers) rules 1994.

A preliminary objection has been raised by learned Standing Counsel that in the present writ petition, the controversy which relates to District Pilibhit and in this regard for redressal of his grievances, the petitioner has already submitted a representation to the District Magistrate, Pilibhit/O.P. No. 3. He further submits that in view of the averments and reliefs as claimed in the present writ petition, the same is not maintainable before this Court. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the abovesaid position. However he submits that an identical writ petitoin is pending before this Court.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Admittedly in the present case as per the relief claimed by the petitioner, no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court sitting at Lucknow.

Once no cause of action whatsoever has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court sitting at Lucknow then the petitioner has no locus to file the present writ petition before this Court at Lucknow in view of the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Nasiruddin Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, and in the case of Full Bench decision of this Court Nitya Nand Tewari v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1994(12) LCD 1181.

For the foregoing reasons, the present writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable for want of jurisdiction before this Court sitting at Lucknow. However, if the petitoiner is so advised, he may approach before appropriate forum for redressal of his grievances.