Vineet Saran, J. - (1.) -Heard Sri D. V. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 ; Sri C. K. Singh for respondents No. 2 and 3 and Sri Vipul Kumar for respondent No. 4. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.
(2.) THE petitioner was initially appointed on a Class IV post on 29.9.1993 in Nagar Kshetra Samiti, Mohanpur, District Etah. In February, 2001 by an order passed by the District Magistrate, the petitioner was attached to Nagar Panchayat, Amapur, District Etah. THEreafter by an order dated 31.12.2003 passed by the Chairman of the Nagar Panchayat, Amapur the attachment of the petitioner was withdrawn and he was sent back to Nagar Panchayat, Mohanpur. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 7223 of 2004, of which there is no disclosure in this writ petition and the same has been brought on record by the respondent No. 2 by way of filing a counter-affidavit. THE said Writ Petition No. 7223 of 2004 was dismissed by a detailed and reasoned order dated 4.3.2004. It has also been stated that the said judgment was challenged by the petitioner in special appeal which was dismissed as withdrawn on 2.2.2005. Now by means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2 Nagar Panchayat, Amapur to permit the petitioner to work on the post of Tax Collector and to pay him his salary. The petitioner was never appointed in Nagar Panchayat Amapur and it was only for the period 2001-03 that the petitioner was attached to the said Nagar Panchayat, Amapur. The Writ Petition No. 7223 of 2004 filed by the petitioner challenging the order of cancellation of his attachment had been dismissed and as such the petitioner cannot be said to be in the service of Nagar Panchayat, Amapur. More importantly the petitioner was attached on a Class IV post and now he wants to be permitted to work as Tax Collector in Nagar Panchayat, Amapur and be paid his salary. Such prayer does not deserve to be granted on merits as well as on the ground that the petitioner had concealed material fact of having filed an earlier Writ Petition No. 7223 of 2004 which had been dismissed by this Court on 4.3.2004. The petitioner has mentioned the fact relating to his filing of another Writ Petition No. 60776 of 2005 challenging the appointment of the respondent No. 4 but has failed to disclose the material information relating to the filing of the Writ Petition No. 7223 of 2004 which was directly related to the prayer made in this writ petition. No explanation whatsoever has been given by the learned counsel for the petitioner for concealing this material fact from this Court. It is very unfortunate that a petitioner files a subsequent writ petition for similar prayer made in an earlier writ petition which had been rejected and does not even care to give the facts relating to the filing of the earlier writ petition in the subsequent writ petition. Such action of the petitioner is highly deprecated by this Court and thus while dismissing this writ petition, in my view, the petitioner would also be liable to pay cost to the respondents. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed with cost which is assessed at Rs. 20,000 (Rs. Twenty thousand only). The cost shall be deposited by the petitioner with the Registrar-General of this Court within six weeks from today failing which the Registrar-General of this Court shall forward a copy of this order to the District Magistrate, Etah, for recovering the same from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue. On such cost being deposited by the petitioner or recovered from him through the District Magistrate, Etah, the Registrar-General shall pay half of the said cost, i.e., Rs. 10,000 (Rs. ten thousand only) to the respondents No. 2/3 and the remaining half amount of Rs. 10,000 (Rs. ten thousand only) to the respondent No. 4.;