In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court dismissed a review application filed by Randhir Kumar Pandey, while taking a stern stance against the baseless allegations made against senior advocates and judicial officers. The court, presided over by Justice Neeraj Tiwari, labeled the allegations as “unfortunate and uncalled for” and imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on the petitioner, citing the misuse of the legal process.
Background of the Case
The review application (Civil Misc. Review Application No. 313 of 2024) was filed by the petitioner, Randhir Kumar Pandey, against the judgment dated May 8, 2024, in Matters Under Article 227 No. 3034 of 2024. The original writ petition challenged two orders: one by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 26, Kanpur Nagar, dated November 17, 2023, in Rent Appeal No. 41 of 2008, and another by the Prescribed Authority/Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 2, Kanpur Nagar, dated February 25, 2008, in Rent Case No. 72 of 2001.
The dispute revolves around a rented shop, with the landlord, Sri Purushottam Das Maheshwari, seeking eviction under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, on grounds of bona fide need. The petitioner, who has been occupying the shop since before 1950, initially contested the orders but later requested time to vacate the premises.
Important Legal Issues Involved
1. Challenge to Eviction Order: The petitioner contested the eviction order issued by the Additional District Judge and the Prescribed Authority under the Urban Building Act, citing procedural and substantive grounds.
2. Allegations Against Counsel and Judiciary: The petitioner made serious allegations against senior advocates, including Mr. D.P. Singh and Mr. Atul Dayal, and several judges of the Kanpur Nagar judgeship, accusing them of misconduct without supporting evidence or affidavits.
3. Misrepresentation by Counsel: The petitioner claimed he never instructed his counsel, Mr. D.P. Singh, not to contest the case on merits, contrary to the statements made in court. The court had earlier accepted the petitioner’s request for a one-year time extension to vacate the shop based on this representation.
Court’s Decision and Key Observations
The court, after hearing both parties, dismissed the review petition, finding no merit in the arguments presented by the petitioner. Justice Neeraj Tiwari stated:
– “There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders dated 17.11.2023 & 25.02.2008. Therefore, there is no scope to review the order dated 08.05.2024.”
– Regarding the allegations against the senior advocates, Justice Tiwari noted: “Mr. D.P. Singh and Mr. Atul Dayal are designated Senior Advocates of this Court with a very high reputation. Such allegations against them without any substance are very unfortunate and uncalled for.”
– The court further remarked on the petitioner’s conduct: “The serious allegations against counsels, the District Judge, and many other Judges of the Kanpur Nagar Judgeship, not supported by any affidavit, are nothing but an attempt to malign the reputation of the institution.”
Final Ruling and Consequences
Considering the petitioner’s age (77 years) and his serious health issues, the court decided against initiating criminal contempt proceedings. However, it dismissed the review application, categorizing it as a “gross misuse of process of law.” The petitioner was ordered to pay a cost of ₹1 lakh within 15 days to the Registrar General of the High Court, which would then be deposited into the account of the High Court Legal Services Committee. In case of failure to comply, the court directed the District Magistrate of Kanpur Nagar to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue.
Lawyers and Parties Involved
– Petitioner: Randhir Kumar Pandey, in person
– Opposite Party: Sri Purushottam Das Maheshwari
– Counsel for the Applicant: Sri D.P. Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Ghan Shyam
– Counsel for the Respondent: Ms. Rama Goel Bansal
