HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 23710 of 2025 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri Avinash Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned A.C.S.C. for the State and Sri Yash Padia, learned counsel for the NOIDA. 2. The instant writ petition is preferred for a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to make a decision on the application bearing computerized no. 57702 for the allotment of the remaining open land adjoining plot being Bradari No.-3 Bock-7, Govind Nagar, Kanpur Nagar in favour of the petitioners. 3. At the very outset, Sri Yash Padia, learned counsel for the Development Authority raised preliminary objection qua maintainability of the writ petition in light of the order dated 08.11.2021 passed by the Division Bench in Writ-C No. 22286 of 2021 (Tejendra Singh and 2 others vs. State of U.P. and 2 others), wherein the Division Bench observed "After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioners prays for withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to pursue their remedy available to them under the law. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty." and submits that in view of the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be treated as second writ petition for the same relief. As such, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. Shri Tajinder Singh And 2 Others Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Avinash Mani Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : Yash Padia, C.S.C. ....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another .....Respondent(s) 4. Before parting with the matter, we may refer to Rule 7 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, wherein there is a specific bar against filing of a second application for a direction, order or writ under Article 226 on the same set of facts. 5. Besides this, the issue of filing successive writ petition has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again and it has been held that even if the earlier writ petition has been dismissed as withdrawn, the provisions enshrined in Order XXIII Rule 1 C.P.C., which is founded on public policy, mandates that successive writ petition cannot be entertained for the same relief. (Ref: M/s. Sarguja Transport Service Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 88; Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Delhi Development Authority, 1994 (6) SCC 97; and Khacher Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1995 All. 338). 6. In Dr. Buddhi Kota Subbarao Vs. K. Parasaran & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 2687, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- "No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the Court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner he wishes. However, access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions." 7. Similar view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in K.K. Modi Vs. K.N. Modi & Ors., (1998) 3 SCC 573. 8. In Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Anr. Vs. N. Raju Reddiar & Anr. AIR 1997 SC 1005 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that filing successive misconceived and frivolous applications for clarification, modification or for seeking a review of the order interferes with the purity of the administration of law and salutary and healthy practice. Such a litigant must be dealt with a very heavy hand. 9. In Sabia Khan & ors. Vs. State of U.P. & ors., (1999) 1 SCC 271, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that filing totally misconceived petition amounts to abuse of the process of the Court and such litigant is not required to be dealt with lightly. 10. In Abdul Rahman Vs. Prasoni Bai & Anr., (2003) 1 SCC 488, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that wherever the Court comes to the conclusion that the process of the Court is being abused, the Court would be justified in refusing to proceed further and refuse the party from pursuing the remedy in law. WRIC No. 23710 of 2025 2 11. Considering the aforesaid propositions of law, objection raised by learned counsel for the Development Authority. and perusing the order dated 08.11.2021 passed by Coordinate Bench in Writ-C No. 22286 of 2021, we are of the opinion that the second writ petition, seeking the same relief, is not maintainable and the instant writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. October 6, 2025 Pkb/ WRIC No. 23710 of 2025 3 (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRAMOD KUMAR BAJPAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad