High Court · 2025

the name of Shriharisharanam on Youtube and still he delivers Bhagwat Katha. however, because of brain stroke, he could not work in this field and the sons of petitioner no.1 are not well settled in their life and petitioner no.1 had asked money from respondent no.4 only because he wanted to settle his children. After refusal of respondent no.4 to part with the money that belongs to petitioner no.1, petitioner moved online RTI application to State Bank of India, Delhi Circle to retrieve details of the transactions relating to the year 2000 as several cheques have been signed by petitioner no.1 in favour of respondent no.4. The Bank refused to part with such information saying that it is unable retrieve as it does not maintain such old records. Petitioner no.1 has also sent online application to the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax to retrieve the information relating to the transfers made by petitioner no.1 into the account of respondent no.4, but the C.P.I.O. Income Tax has expressed its inability to give details of account of another person (respondent no.4). The petitioner had sent a request/application to the D.G.P., U.P. and the Chief Minister of U.P. to set up an enquiry against respondent no.4, however, nothing happened thereafter petitioner had filed complaint (IGRS) on Jan Sunwai U.P. Portal in the month of August, 2024 on which the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Bazar Khala marked the matter to the Station House Officer, Bazar Khala, however, no information could be received from the Police Station Bazar Khala. The petitioner sent R.T.I. application to the D.G.P., U.P. office praying for information regarding what happened on his earlier application has also not being replied. The petitioner has sent an application to the District Magistrate, Jaunpur and Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur in September, 2024 for ceasing account of respondent no.4 maintained in Jaunpur and for transferring the money into the account of petitioner no.1, but till date no heed has been paid on his application.

5. It has been submitted by the petitioner no.2, who appears in person, that the amount of rupees two crore has been given by petitioner no.1 through cheques to respondent no.4 in the year 2000 and only with the assistance of State Bank of India Branch, New Delhi, where account of petitioner no.1 is maintained, details can be gathered with regard to cheque numbers through which payment has been made to respondent no.4.

6. It has also been prayed that this Court may initiate an investigation in culpable conduct of respondent no.4 in taking money of petitioner no.1 and investigate for well-being of his children, who are not settled.

7. Learned Standing Counsel says that I.G.R.S. complaint may have been investigated and if any report is submitted, the same is also given to the petitioner/applicant. In this regard petitioner no.1 has not filed any copy of any report submitted in pursuance of his I.G.R.S. by the relevant police station.

8. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 says that since the petitioner is asking for details of income tax returns of respondent no.4, a third person, such details cannot be given.

9. The petitioner no.2 has also stated before this Court that he has also approached Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by filing Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No.55826 of 2024; Tribhuwan Nath Dubey & Anr. versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., which was taken up on 21.03.2025 and Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that Article 32 of the Constitution of India remedy is not available for such cases only writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be filed and, therefore, petitioner withdrew his writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and has filed instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

10. We have gone through the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of which operative portion are as follows: "9. We permit him to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file appropriate proceedings before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in accordance with law.

10. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn.

11. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

12. We clarify that we have otherwise not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case."

11. It is evident from the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court and the clarification given in its order, that the Supreme Court has not considered merits of the case.

12. During the course of argument, this Court has considered merits of the case and has put specific query to petitioner no.2 whether his father, who was working as Lecturer in an inter college in Lucknow could earn that much as to pay rupees two crores, which he gave his brother-in-law for investment. He has stated that petitioner no.1 was doing business of ‘Kathavachak’ and he was given money by his 'jajman' as remuneration for the 'katha' he used to narrate. This Court has also put a specific query to petitioner no.2 whether his father ever filed any Income Tax Return as in case he had filed such Income Tax Return, respondent no.2 can be directed to give details of Income Tax Returns filed by petitioner no.1. In such Income Tax Return, the amount gifted by petitioner no.1 to respondent no.4 would have been mentioned and account of petitioner no.1 can be directed to be investigated in this regard by respondent no.2, if the Court feels it appropriate.

13. Petitioner no.2 has replied that his father never filed any Income Tax Return. It is not evident from the pleadings on record that if petitioner no.1 did not file any Income Tax Return, how he could have retained rupees two crores in his bank account, being a Lecturer, in a government college, and maintaining a household with four children. It is also not clear to the Court as to how petitioner no.1 gave rupees two crore to his brother-in-law - respondent no.4 through cheques unless petitioner no.1 maintained any bank account containing rupees two crore in the year 2000. He could not have issued such cheques to respondent no.4 without such money in his account. Also this Court is not convinced that petitioner no.1 did not keep any record of money which he transferred through cheques to his brother-in-law/respondent no.4.

14. The petitioners have asked for mandamus to be issued to the respondents for several reliefs that he has claimed in the writ petition as aforesaid. No mandamus can be issued without there being any subsisting legal right. A litigant has to stand on his own leg and first make out a case for issuance of any direction as prayed in this writ petition. This court is not convinced with the arguments raised by petitioner no.2 regarding any of the facts as mentioned aforesaid. It, therefore, cannot grant any relief as prayed in this writ petition.

15. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.

16. However, such observations as have been made herein- above shall not prevent the petitioners to file a suit for recovery with relevant documentary evidence if it all, in his possession against respondent no.4. . (Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Order Date :- 8.7.2025 Anupam S/- ANUPAM SINGH PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

the name of Shriharisharanam on Youtube and still he delivers Bhagwat Katha. however, because of brain stroke, he could not work in this field and the sons of petitioner no.1 are not well settled in their life and petitioner no.1 had asked money from respondent no.4 only because he wanted to settle his children. After refusal of respondent no.4 to part with the money that belongs to petitioner no.1, petitioner moved online RTI application to State Bank of India, Delhi Circle to retrieve details of the transactions relating to the year 2000 as several cheques have been signed by petitioner no.1 in favour of respondent no.4. The Bank refused to part with such information saying that it is unable retrieve as it does not maintain such old records. Petitioner no.1 has also sent online application to the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax to retrieve the information relating to the transfers made by petitioner no.1 into the account of respondent no.4, but the C.P.I.O. Income Tax has expressed its inability to give details of account of another person (respondent no.4). The petitioner had sent a request/application to the D.G.P., U.P. and the Chief Minister of U.P. to set up an enquiry against respondent no.4, however, nothing happened thereafter petitioner had filed complaint (IGRS) on Jan Sunwai U.P. Portal in the month of August, 2024 on which the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Bazar Khala marked the matter to the Station House Officer, Bazar Khala, however, no information could be received from the Police Station Bazar Khala. The petitioner sent R.T.I. application to the D.G.P., U.P. office praying for information regarding what happened on his earlier application has also not being replied. The petitioner has sent an application to the District Magistrate, Jaunpur and Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur in September, 2024 for ceasing account of respondent no.4 maintained in Jaunpur and for transferring the money into the account of petitioner no.1, but till date no heed has been paid on his application.

5. It has been submitted by the petitioner no.2, who appears in person, that the amount of rupees two crore has been given by petitioner no.1 through cheques to respondent no.4 in the year 2000 and only with the assistance of State Bank of India Branch, New Delhi, where account of petitioner no.1 is maintained, details can be gathered with regard to cheque numbers through which payment has been made to respondent no.4.

6. It has also been prayed that this Court may initiate an investigation in culpable conduct of respondent no.4 in taking money of petitioner no.1 and investigate for well-being of his children, who are not settled.

7. Learned Standing Counsel says that I.G.R.S. complaint may have been investigated and if any report is submitted, the same is also given to the petitioner/applicant. In this regard petitioner no.1 has not filed any copy of any report submitted in pursuance of his I.G.R.S. by the relevant police station.

8. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 says that since the petitioner is asking for details of income tax returns of respondent no.4, a third person, such details cannot be given.

9. The petitioner no.2 has also stated before this Court that he has also approached Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by filing Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No.55826 of 2024; Tribhuwan Nath Dubey & Anr. versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., which was taken up on 21.03.2025 and Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that Article 32 of the Constitution of India remedy is not available for such cases only writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be filed and, therefore, petitioner withdrew his writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and has filed instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

10. We have gone through the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of which operative portion are as follows: "9. We permit him to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file appropriate proceedings before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in accordance with law.

10. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn.

11. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

12. We clarify that we have otherwise not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case."

11. It is evident from the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court and the clarification given in its order, that the Supreme Court has not considered merits of the case.

12. During the course of argument, this Court has considered merits of the case and has put specific query to petitioner no.2 whether his father, who was working as Lecturer in an inter college in Lucknow could earn that much as to pay rupees two crores, which he gave his brother-in-law for investment. He has stated that petitioner no.1 was doing business of ‘Kathavachak’ and he was given money by his 'jajman' as remuneration for the 'katha' he used to narrate. This Court has also put a specific query to petitioner no.2 whether his father ever filed any Income Tax Return as in case he had filed such Income Tax Return, respondent no.2 can be directed to give details of Income Tax Returns filed by petitioner no.1. In such Income Tax Return, the amount gifted by petitioner no.1 to respondent no.4 would have been mentioned and account of petitioner no.1 can be directed to be investigated in this regard by respondent no.2, if the Court feels it appropriate.

13. Petitioner no.2 has replied that his father never filed any Income Tax Return. It is not evident from the pleadings on record that if petitioner no.1 did not file any Income Tax Return, how he could have retained rupees two crores in his bank account, being a Lecturer, in a government college, and maintaining a household with four children. It is also not clear to the Court as to how petitioner no.1 gave rupees two crore to his brother-in-law - respondent no.4 through cheques unless petitioner no.1 maintained any bank account containing rupees two crore in the year 2000. He could not have issued such cheques to respondent no.4 without such money in his account. Also this Court is not convinced that petitioner no.1 did not keep any record of money which he transferred through cheques to his brother-in-law/respondent no.4.

14. The petitioners have asked for mandamus to be issued to the respondents for several reliefs that he has claimed in the writ petition as aforesaid. No mandamus can be issued without there being any subsisting legal right. A litigant has to stand on his own leg and first make out a case for issuance of any direction as prayed in this writ petition. This court is not convinced with the arguments raised by petitioner no.2 regarding any of the facts as mentioned aforesaid. It, therefore, cannot grant any relief as prayed in this writ petition.

15. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.

16. However, such observations as have been made herein- above shall not prevent the petitioners to file a suit for recovery with relevant documentary evidence if it all, in his possession against respondent no.4. . (Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Order Date :- 8.7.2025 Anupam S/- ANUPAM SINGH PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench