Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
  • M. Katju
  • Dr. B.S Chauhan, JJ.
Acts
  • XXII Rule 7 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
  • M. Katju
  • Dr. B.S Chauhan, JJ.
Acts
  • XXII Rule 7 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Judgment Summary: M. Katju and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ.

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner sought a direction to the respondents to provide an armed guard. The petitioner had earlier filed writ petition No. 27081 of 1995, which was finally disposed of by an order dated 22-9-1995 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition). The present petition is a subsequent filing on the same cause.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the second or successive writ petition seeking the same relief (direction to provide an armed guard) is maintainable in view of Chapter XXII Rule 7 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.
  2. Whether this Court can direct the respondents to provide an armed guard to the petitioner.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Saheb Lal v. Assistant Registrar (Administration), Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi 1995 (1) UPLBEC 31 That filing of successive writ petitions on the same facts and grounds is against public policy and amounts to abuse of process of Court. The Court relied on this authority to support the proposition that the instant, successive petition is barred and amounts to an abuse of process, rendering the petition not maintainable.
I.S Tripathi v. B.H.U 1993 (1) UPLBEC 448 That filing of successive writ petitions on the same facts and grounds is against public policy and amounts to abuse of process of Court. The Court relied on this authority together with Saheb Lal to hold that successive writs on the same grounds are impermissible and to find the present petition not maintainable.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court first observed that the present petition repeats a cause already finally disposed of by writ petition No. 27081 of 1995 (order dated 22-9-1995). It invoked Chapter XXII Rule 7 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, which bars filing of a second or successive writ petition on the same cause.

The Court referred to precedents (Saheb Lal and I.S. Tripathi) deciding that successive writ petitions on the same facts and grounds violate public policy and constitute abuse of the court's process. Applying those principles, the Court concluded that the instant petition is not maintainable and must be dismissed.

On the substantive request for an order directing provision of an armed guard, the Court held that it was not possible for the Court to issue such a direction. The Court acknowledged that the State has a duty to protect citizens but stated that the country cannot afford to provide armed guards casually. Noting the availability of private security agencies in modern times, the Court suggested that the petitioner may approach such a private agency for security.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED

Direct effect: The petition was held not maintainable and dismissed; the Court refused to direct the respondents to provide an armed guard to the petitioner. The Court advised the petitioner to consider private security agencies as an alternative.

Broader implications: The opinion applies established principles (as cited) limiting successive writ petitions as contrary to public policy and an abuse of process. The opinion does not indicate the creation of any new legal precedent beyond applying existing authorities and the relevant court rule.

Show full summary ...

    Natthi Singh v. State Of U.P And Others

    M. Katju and Dr. B.S Chauhan, JJ.:— The instant petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents to provide armed guard to the petitioner. For the same cause the petitioner had earlier filed writ petition No. 27081 of 1995, which was disposed of finally with a direction to the respondents, vide order dated 22-9.1995, contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The filing of second or successive writ petition is barred by Chapter XXII Rule 7 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. This issue was dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court reported in Saheb Lal v. Assistant Registrar (Administration), Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi 1995 (1) UPLBEC 31, and also in I.S Tripathi v. B.H.U 1993 (1) UPLBEC 448, wherein it has been held that filing of successive writ petitions on the same facts and grounds is against the public policy and also amounts to abuse of process of Court.

    2. The petition is not maintainable and is dismissed. However, as the prayer in the instant petition is only for directing the authority to provide a security guard to the petitioner, it may be mentioned that it is not possible for this Court to issue such a direction.

    3. Though it is a serious matter and it is the duty of the State to protect the citizens of the country, however, this country cannot afford to provide armed guards in a cavilier fashion. In the modern times a large number of private agencies have started the business of providing security guards and the petitioner may also approach such an agency.

    4. Petition Dismissed.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Natthi Singh v. State Of U.P And Others
    (Nov 22, 1996)