High Court Jharkhand High Court

Satish Kumar Sinha vs Union Of India & Ors. on 30 June, 2010

Jharkhand High Court
Satish Kumar Sinha vs Union Of India & Ors. on 30 June, 2010
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                 L.P.A.No. 508 of 2009
                 Satish Kumar Sinha                                 ......Appellant
                                             Versus
                 The Union of India & ors.                      ......Respondents
                                         ---------
                 CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
                             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. PATEL
                                         ---------
                 For the appellant:      None
                 For the respondents:    M/s V. Shivnath, Sr. Advocate &
                                         A.N.Gupta, Advocate

07. 30.06.2010

The matter was called out in the revised list. No one appears on
behalf of the appellant on both the calls.

Learned counsel for the respondents is present.
We have gone through the records. The order against which this
Letters Patent Appeal has been filed is dated 2nd September, 2009 and it is
reproduced below in its entirety:

“This civil miscellaneous petition has been filed for review of
order dated 26.6.2007 passed in W.P.(C) No. 5229 of 2002 which
reads as follows:

“Mr. Anjani Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the
petitioner, seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition,
saying that it has become infructuous in view of the judgment
dated 12th January, 2007, given by the Supreme Court in
Transferred Case (Civil) No. 100 of 2002 (Mukund Swarup
Mishra Vrs. Union of India & ors.). Counsel appearing for
respondent nos. 1,2,5 and 6 have no objection.

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed, as
withdrawn”

It is submitted by Mr. Verma appearing for the petitioner that
all the prayers in the writ petition did not become infructuous, and
therefore, the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to the
petitioner to approach the concerned authorities for consideration of
petitioner’s grievance for allotment of the petrol pump, but such
liberty was not recorded in the said order and, and therefore, this
civil miscellaneous petition has been filed for review of the order.

The said order was passed in Court in presence of Mr. Verma.

From the order it does not appear that any such liberty was prayed
2.
or given.

Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous petition is dismissed.
However, no costs.”

In view of the observations in the impugned order, this appeal is
devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Sushil Harkauli, A.C.J.)

(D.N. Patel, J)
A.K.Verma/