Justice Manju Rani Chauhan, Allahabad High Court
Petitioner Seeks To Withdraw Writ Petition 6 Years After Obtaining Interim Order; Allahabad HC Suspects Foul Play, Seeks Affidavit From Official On How Grievance Was Redressed
|The Court noted that a bald assertion of out-of-court settlement without supporting documentation cannot justify the withdrawal of long-pending writ petitions enjoying interim stay.
The Allahabad High Court has strongly disapproved of the practice of seeking to withdraw long-pending writ petitions on bald assertions of out-of-court settlements after enjoying years of protective interim orders, observing that court processes cannot be frustrated by unexplained administrative actions, especially in departments where allegations of corruption are frequently raised.
Refusing to grant unconditional leave to withdraw a six-year-old service petition, a Bench directed the District Basic Education Officer (BSA), Prayagraj, to file a comprehensive personal affidavit detailing the exact terms, legal basis, underlying documents, and the specific officer responsible for the purported settlement before September 10, 2026.
A Bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan observed, “This Court cannot lose sight of the disturbing circumstances prevailing in the Basic Education Department, where allegations of corruption and illegal gratification are frequently brought to its notice. The Court is, therefore, of the considered view that where an order challenged before this Court is sought to be rendered infructuous during the pendency of the proceedings, the circumstances in which such order has allegedly been withdrawn or the grievance otherwise settled must be placed on record and duly explained by the competent authority. The process of the Court cannot be permitted to be frustrated by a subsequent, unexplained administrative action”.
Advocate Ashok Kumar Yadav appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Shailendra Singh appeared for the respondent.
The petitioner, Uphar Kushwaha, an Assistant Teacher in a Junior Basic School run by the Board of Basic Education in Prayagraj, instituted the writ petition challenging an order dated February 25, 2018, passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari (BSA), Prayagraj. The petitioner had sought a writ restraining the state respondents from interfering with his functioning as an Assistant Teacher and directing the payment of his regular monthly salary.
The record of the case shows that the writ petition commenced listing on July 19, 2019. On November 18, 2019, the High Court granted an interim order staying the operation of the impugned order passed by the BSA. The matter remained pending over multiple hearings and an inordinate lapse of nearly six years, during which pleadings were fully exchanged, before the petitioner moved Civil Misc. Withdrawal Application seeking to withdraw the petition as not pressed on the ground that his grievance had been settled.
“This Court, while exercising its jurisdiction, has noticed with serious concern that in a number of matters, writ petitions are sought to be withdrawn after the passage of several years, at a stage when pleadings have already been exchanged and the matters have remained pending pursuant to interim orders. In the present case also, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks withdrawal of the petition after an inordinate lapse of time, merely stating that the grievance of the petitioner has been settled. What is conspicuously absent, however, is any disclosure as to in what manner the alleged grievance has been settled. No order or document has been placed before the Court to demonstrate that the impugned order challenged in the writ petition has been withdrawn, recalled or otherwise rendered ineffective. In the absence of any such material, the bald assertion that the grievance has been settled cannot be accepted at its face value, particularly when the petition has remained pending for years and the pleadings have already been exchanged”, the Court noted.
Cause Title: Uphar Kushwaha v. State of U.P. and 3 Others WRIT - A No. 10465 of 2019
Appearances:
Petitioner: Ashok Kumar Yadav and Siddharth Khare, Advocates.
Respondent: Ashok Kumar Yadav, C.S.C., R. A. Akhtar, Rijwan Ali Akhtar, and Shailendra Singh (holding brief of K. Shahi), Advocates.