The Supreme Court of India today dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by the Samajwadi Party while clarifying that the party may approach the Allahabad High Court regarding the eviction dispute concerning its Pilibhit district office.
The court’s order came in response to the party’s challenge against an Allahabad High Court decision that had restrained its Pilibhit district president from filing further petitions on the matter.
However, the apex court clarified that the party itself remains free to approach the High Court for relief.
Case History
In its petition before the Supreme Court, the Samajwadi Party sought relief against what it claims was an unlawful eviction from its district office in Pilibhit by the Nagar Palika Parishad on November 12, 2020. The party maintains it has been in lawful possession of the premises since 2005 and has consistently paid rent for the property for over 16 years.
The legal dispute originated when Anand Singh Yadav, identifying himself as the district president, filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court challenging the eviction.
Stance Of The High Court
The High Court not only declined to entertain his petition but also barred him from filing any further petitions on the same matter, without granting liberty to file afresh.
Proceedings Before The Supreme Court
During proceedings before the Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and PB Varale, Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave, appearing for the Samajwadi Party, argued that the High Court’s order had the unintended consequence of preventing the party itself from seeking legal recourse.
He emphasized that the premises rightfully belonged to the party and that Yadav’s petition had been filed in his individual capacity without proper authorization.
Justice Mehta questioned the party’s approach, asking, “What stops you from going to the high court?”
This prompted the party to clarify that it sought formal permission to approach the High Court independently of Yadav’s earlier petition.
Key points
In its ruling, the Supreme Court noted 2 key issues:
First, the petition suffered from a 998-day delay in filing, and second, the original writ petition had been filed by Yadav in his individual capacity without proper party authorization.
The Court stated, “The SLP suffers from a delay of 998 days, and in addition to, it is clear writ petition was preferred before the High Court by one Mr Anand Singh Yadav, claiming to be the President of the petitioner’s party. However, the petitioner party alienates itself from the said position… We are 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.”
While dismissing the petition, the Court made it clear that its order did not prevent the Samajwadi Party from independently approaching the Allahabad High Court to challenge the eviction and seek appropriate relief, including directions for execution of a lease deed as per the 2005 possession letter.
The ruling thus preserves the party’s right to legal recourse while upholding procedural requirements regarding timely filings and proper party representation.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
