Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:26598-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4254 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shweta Srivastava,Abhishek Srivastava,Vikas Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kushagra Dikshit Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. Ms. Shraddha Tripathi, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the opp. party No. 6, which is taken on record. By means of this petition the petitioners have sought the following main reliefs: “i. Issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 3, the Commissioner Income Tax, Ayodhaya to initiate proceeding against the respondent no. 6 for making payment of Rupees Ten lakh in cash in violation of provisions of Section 269(ST) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and the respondent no. 4 and 5 be also directed to take penal action against the respondent no. 6 for the aforesaid offence under Section 271 (DA) and other relevant provision of the said Act. ii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2, the District Magistrate, Ayodhaya to pass order on representation of the petitioner dated 18.11.2024 (Annexure No.13) and instruct the officials concerned to take stern action against the respondent no. 6 and his associates for their involvement in preparation of forged revenue records and sale and purchase of the properties on the basis of the said documents.” Counsel for the opp. party No. 6 says that the petition is misconceived as under Section 269(ST) of Income Tax Act, 1961 the obligation is upon the person receiving the money, not to receive an amount of Rs. 2 lacs or more. We asked the learned counsel for the petitioners as to whether they accept the fact that the opp. party No. 6 has paid Rs. 10 lacs or more in cash to the petitioners, he submitted in the negative that the petitioners have not accepted the same. We fail to understand that if the petitioners have not accepted the money as per their own stand, then how any such direction, as has been prayed for, could be granted, specially in view of the provisions contained in Section 269(ST). This petition is nothing, but an abuse of the process of the Court. If there is any dispute between the petitioners and the opp. party No. 6, there are forums prescribed for adjudicating such disputes. The petitioners are warned not to indulge in such litigations, otherwise heavy cost would be imposed for wasting the time of the Court. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of. (Om Prakash Shukla, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.) Order Date :- 7.5.2025 A.Nigam Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench