HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6318 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Case has been called out. No one appears for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents is present. 2. On the previous occasion preliminary objection was raised by learned counsel for the respondents that for the same relief, petitioner has approached this Court previously on two occasions and said facts has not not been disclosed and accordingly this Court had directed listing of present case alongwith the record of previous two writ petitions filed by the petitioner. 3. We have perused the record of Writ Petition No. 5430 of 2025, where following prayer was made :- "i. Direct opposite party no. 1 to decide the Misc. Application No. 288 of 2024 Computerized Case No. R 2024030500288 - Ramkar Chauby and Others Vs. Katori Devi, under Section 202 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, pending since 24.01.2024 expeditiously as early as possible.(contained as Annexure No. 2) ii. Issue such other suitable order or direction as the Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." 4. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by means of judgment and order dated 10.09.2025, where this Court had recorded that there was no occasion to interfere in the matter but granted liberty to the petitioner to Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Firdaus Bano Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Ram Karan Chaube .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) approach the Court concerned by moving an application for expeditious disposal of the Misc. Application No. 288 of 2024 - Computerized Case No. R 2024030500288 - Ramkar Chauby and Others Vs. Katori Devi, under Section 202 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. 5. Yet another writ petition was filed by the petitioner being Writ Petition No. 5582 of 2025, which was filed by the same learned counsel who has filed instant writ petition. Prayer made in Writ Petition No. 5582 of 2025, is quoted herein below :- "A. Direct opposite party no. 2 to decide Misc. Application No. 288 of 2024 - Computerized Case No. R 2024030500288 - Ramkar Chauby and Others Vs. Katori Devi, before Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow is pending for disposal for last one year eight months, within stipulated time. B. Any other such order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case." 6. In the aforesaid order following order has been passed on 17.09.2025 :- "1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at the very outset, submits that the petitioner wants to withdraw this petition with liberty to file afresh. 3. In view of the aforesaid submission, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. 4. The office is directed to return the certified copy of the documents annexed with the petition to the learned counsel for the petitioner, after taking photocopy of the same on record. " 7. Despite filing of aforesaid two writ petitions, the petitioner has mustered courage to file another writ petition (3rd writ petition) without disclosing the fact of filing of previous two writ petitions. 8. This Court further finds that learned counsel appearing in the instant A227 No. 6318 of 2025 2 case was also previous counsel who has filed Writ Petition No. 5540 of 2025 and it is not merely concealment by the petitioner but also by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. Considering that learned counsel for the petitioner is a young lawyer, this Court do not wish to take any extreme step, but it would be sufficient to issue warning to the learned counsel for the petitioner not to repeat such conduct in future. 10. In this regard Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha Vs. State of U.P., (2008) 1 SCC 560, has held as under :- "16. A writ remedy is an equitable one. A person approaching a superior court must come with a pair of clean hands. It not only should not suppress any material fact, but also should not take recourse to the legal proceedings over and over again which amounts to abuse of the process of law. In Advocate General, State of Bihar Vs. M.P. Khair Industries [(1980) 3 SCC 311] this Court was of the opinion that such a repeated filing of writ petitions amounts to criminal contempt." 11. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that apart from deliberate concealment of facts, repeated writ petitions for the same cause of action, would not be maintainable. 12. Accordingly, present writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner in the U.P. State Legal Services Authority, Lucknow within next two weeks, failing which the said amount shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue from the petitioner. October 29, 2025 A. Verma A227 No. 6318 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench