GAYA PRASAD CHAUDHARY Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION MADHYAMIK
LAWS(ALL)-2004-1-167
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on January 29,2004

GAYA PRASAD CHAUDHARY Appellant
VERSUS
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (MADHYAMIK) Respondents

JUDGEMENT

R.B.Misra, J. - (1.) Heard Sri A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prakash Padia, learned counsel for the Committee of Management respondent No. 4 and Sri S. Sharma/Sri Sandeep Mukherjee, learned standing counsel for the State.
(2.) According to the petitioner he is live member of the society/ institution and has prayed for writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 to decide the petitioner's representations dated 17.9.1998 and 20.12.1999 (Annexures-3 and 4 to the writ petition). The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate what is the locus standi for getting decision on the representations therefore, the writ petition cannot be adjudicated upon. In similar writ petition this Court on 10.4.2002 in Writ Petition No. 31215 of 1998, Ram Kishore Das v. Director of Education (Secondary), U. P., Allahabad, while dismissing the writ petition has observed as below : "I have perused the averments made in the writ petition in paragraph 2 whereof, it has been stated that the petitioner is founder Life Member of Ex-Manager of the Institution known as Shri Ram Janki Intermediate College, Girdharpur Kungai, district Siddhartnagar. He is neither a candidate for appointment on the post of Principal or teacher nor has been displaced due to the appointments made. Therefore, it cannot be said that he is an aggrieved person and hence he has no locus standi to file the writ petition. Therefore, the order dated 24.9.1998 is liable to be recalled. The application for recalling the order dated 24.9.1998 is allowed. The writ petition is dismissed in view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances."
(3.) It is settled proposition of law that a party has to plead the case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate his submissions made in the petition and in case the pleadings are not complete, the Court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas. [Vide Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1988 SC 2181 ; Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. State of Gujarat and Ors., AIR 1998 SC 1608 ; National Building Construction Corporation v. S. Raghunathan and Ors., AIR 1998 SC 2779 ; Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani and Ors., (1999) 1 SCC 141 ; Chitra Kumari v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 2001 SC 1237 ; and State of U. P. and Ors. v. Chandra Prakash Pandey, 2001 (2) AWC 1399 (SC) ; AIR 2001 SC 1298].;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.