New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a plea of the Samajwadi Party against a decision restraining its Pilibhit district president from filing a fresh petition after it was asked to vacate its local party office.
A bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and P B Varale, however, allowed the political party to approach the Allahabad High Court over the matter.
The top court noted a 998-day delay in filing the appeal against the December 1, 2020 order of the high court on the plea of one Anand Singh Yadav who claimed to be the party’s district president.
The bench observed the party had withdrawn its plea from the high court, but Yadav was restrained from filing any fresh plea on the issue.
“We of the firm view that the aforesaid order cannot be treated as prejudicial to the rights of the petitioner. Accordingly, the special leave petition is dismissed,” the bench held.
According to the party’s appeal, Yadav filed the plea before the high court alleging eviction order passed by the Nagar Palika Parishad of Pilibhit, from the party’s district office.
The high court, it said, refused to entertain the writ petition and refrained Yadav from filing writ petitions before the high court on the same cause of action.
The political party claimed that it did not endorse the views taken by Yadav, who had filed the writ petition before the high court in personal capacity.
Senior advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for the political party, sought the liberty to move the high court to seek the relief.
Dave said due to the high court’s order, the party was restrained from filing a fresh plea though the premises belonged to the party and they had been duly paying the rent for the past 16 years.
The party claimed that the civic body ordered it to vacate the premises on November 12, 2020 without offering it the opportunity to be heard.
“Therefore, the party wants to approach the high court to seek direction to the chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad, Pilibhit, and its executive officer, to decide on the execution of the lease deed in favour of the petitioner, pursuant to the letter of possession dated March 17, 2005,” the appeal said.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.