JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner-in-person seeks liberty to correct the name of the respondent as Ajay Mohan Singh Bisht for and in place of Yogi Adityanath, the sole respondent in the present writ petition. We permit the petitioner to correct the particulars of respondent during the course of the day.

2. The prayer made in the writ petition reads as under:-

(i) Issue a writ quo warranto to the respondent very kindly questioning his continuance as Chief Minister of State of Uttar Pradesh with effect from 25.09.2022.

(ii) To pass any other appropriate order as the circumstances of the case may require; and

(iii) To allow the writ petition.

3. Apparently, the Petitioner at Para 19 of the Writ Petition has admitted that he is neither an Elector nor a candidate at the election of 322-Gorakhpur Urban Legislative Assembly constituency, from which the Respondent stands elected. It is also available from the Writ Petition that the present petition has come to be filed on the ground that (a) the respondent is a usurper of office of Chief Minister of State of Uttar Pradesh with effect from 25.09.2022 and (b) Allegedly the Respondent was not qualified to contest the election for the current legislative assembly of State of Uttar Pradesh due to violation of provisions of Rule 4 A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. Thus, in a nut-shell, it has been prayed by the Petitioner for issuance of Writ of Quo Warranto against the Respondent for his continuation as Chief Minister of State of Uttar Pradesh with effect from 25.09.2022. The petitioner has also relied upon a judgment passed by the Kerala High Court in the case of Shaiju J. Kooran & Etc. V/s State Election Commission, Thirunanvanthapuram and Ors. (AIR 2003 Kerala 246), wherein election as municipal councillors and panchayat member under the Kerala Municipality Act was under challenge.

4. This court having given a thoughtful consideration to the issue in hand, finds the present petition to be very amusing. The petitioner seems to be in a spree of filing this kind of petition as admittedly, an identical petition praying inter-alia for the same relief vide W.P (C) no. 5627 of 2022, was dismissed as withdrawn. It would be interesting to note the final order dated 29.08.2022 passed by a coordinate division bench of this Court, which inter-alia says:

"Heard the Petitioner appeared in person and learned Advocate General for the respondents – State.

After arguing at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn."

5. Apparently, no leave nor any liberty had been sought by the Petitioner to file the present Writ Petition. A constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court way back in the year 1990 has held that the principles of res judicata are applicable to writ petitions in the case of Direct recruit class II engineering officers Association V/s State of Maharashtra, (1990) 2 SCC 715, however this court without testing the present writ petition on the premise of res-judicata, grants the concession of considering the present writ petition.

6. Section 80 of the Representation of People's Act, 1951 inter-alia states that no election shall be called in question except by an Election Petition presented in accordance with the provisions of this part. Essentially, the sum & substance of the relief being sought by the Petitioner is on the basis of an attack to the alleged affidavit filed by the Respondent in terms of the provisions of Rule 4 A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. It is the case of the petitioner that since the said affidavit was not as per the provisions of the said rules, the election of the respondent as a Member of the Legislative Assembly was not legal and consequently, even if, the respondent had been appointed as a Chief Minister of the state of Uttar Pradesh, his continuation cannot be confirmed as per law in view of Article 164(4) of the Constitution of