HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 820 of 2025 Chief Justice's Court HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J. 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 08.09.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ C No.30926 of 2025 wherein the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed, as not maintainable. 2. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner inter alia seeking the following reliefs: "(i) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding respondent No.1 to consider and decide the M.A. No.01 of 2023 forthwith and in meantime unless the same is decided the proceeding of DRC No.915 of 2022 may be kept in abeyance. (ii) Issue writ of Mandamus commanding respondent No.3 to consider the proposal of OTS of Rs 7.10 Crore which is much higher than the reserve price of the properties of the petitioner." 3. Learned Single Judge noticed that the petitioner had earlier filed petition seeking similar relief being Writ C No.6556 of 2025 which was decided on 05.03.2.2025 and in view of Chapter XXII Rule 7 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, second writ petition for the same cause of relief was not maintainable. 4. Counsel for the appellant made submissions that though the order passed by the learned Single Judge qua the first relief may by justified, the second relief claimed by the petitioner could not have been dismissed on the said ground. Further submissions have been made that in fact the second relief claimed by the petitioner was not even maintainable before Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Arun Mishra, Raj Kumar Tiwari, Vijay Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Abhishek Ahuja M/s S-9 Infra Private Ltd. .....Appellant(s) Debt Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad and 2 others .....Respondent(s) the learned Single Judge as the same was cognizable by Division Bench and on that count, the order impugned requires interference. 5. We have considered the submissions made and have perused the material available on record. 6. When the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ C No.6556 of 2025, on 05.03.2025, the following order was passed: "1. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer; "i. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 to decide the recall application dated 2.1.2023 filed by the petitioner which is registered as MA no.1 of 2023 (Annexure.no.2 to the writ petition), within the period to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court and till the disposal of the recall application, direct the parties to maintain status quo as on date." 2. It is contended that a recall application, which had registered as M.A. No. 1 of 2023, is pending consideration before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad. The sole prayer made in writ petition for early disposal of said recall application. 3. As no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending, the writ petition is being disposed of, at the admission stage, without calling for counter affidavit or issuing notice to private respondent, with a direction upon the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad to decide the M.A. No. 1 of 2023, in accordance with law, after hearing all affected parties, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order 4. With the aforesaid directions, writ petition stands disposed of. 5. It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the matter on merits." 7. Aggrieved of the said order, the appellant approached Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition which came to be dismissed on 13.05.2025 with the following observations: "1. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court; hence, the special leave petition is dismissed. 2. However, the petitioners are granted liberty to pursue their statutory remedy before the relevant Tribunal, in accordance with law. 3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of." 8. Whereafter, the appellant has again filed the present writ petition seeking reliefs as quoted hereinbefore. SPLAD No. 820 of 2025 2 9. Admittedly, the first relief was claimed in the earlier writ petition and petition has been disposed of by passing directions and therefore, the second writ petition with identical reliefs could not have been filed/maintained by the appellant. 10. So far as the second relief claimed in the writ petition is concerned, the appellant has to thank himself in clubbing two reliefs, one cognizable by learned Single Judge and other by Division Bench and apparently before the learned Single Judge, when the appellant was confronted with the fact of filing previous writ petition, no attempt was made to get the said relief segregated and/or seek the relief independent of the pending writ petition. 11. In that view of the matter, no case for interference in the order passed by the learned Single Judge is made out in the present appeal, the same is therefore, dismissed. October 7, 2025 Sandeep/Jyotsana SPLAD No. 820 of 2025 3 (Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.) Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad