IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 76 of 2010
------
Indramani Thakur... ... ...... ... ... ....... ..... Appellant
Versus
1.Union of India
2.The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs
3.The Under Secretary to Government of India
4.The Chief Accounts Controller
5.The State of Jharkhand
6.The Director cum Deputy Secretary, Home
7.The State of Bihar.. ... ........ .... ... ............Respondents
------
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. Y. EQBAL
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD
------
For the Appellant: M/s Bhanu Kumar,
For the Union of India : Mr. Prabhash Kumar
For the State : Mr. A. Allam, Sr. S.C. II
------
2/ 26.03.2010
Heard the parties.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated
22.1.2010 passed in W.P. (C ) No. 3663 of 2004 whereby the
learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. For better
appreciation, the impugned judgment is quoted herein below:
“Learned counsel for the petitioner
acknowledges the fact that the petitioner had
earlier filed a writ application before the Patna
High Court against the same order which has
been impugned in the present writ application
and the earlier writ application was dismissed
on merits. Learned counsel however argues
that after the bifurcation of the State of Bihar
and formation of this Court, the order of the
Patna High Court passed in the petitioner’s writ
application, may not be considered as binding
upon this Court.
Learned counsel for the respondent
State of Bihar objects to such submission on
the ground that the adjudication on the disputed
issue has already been made by the competent
Court and the petitioner cannot raise the same
issue before this Bench. If at all the petitioner
was aggrieved by the judgement passed in the
earlier writ application, he would have preferred
an appeal against the same or at least a review
application.
I am inclined to accept the submission of
the learned counsel for the respondent State of
Bihar. The decision taken by the Patna High
Court on the issue raised by the petitioner has
attained finality and the same could have been
set aside only either in appeal or the same
could have been modified by the same Court
upon a review being filed.
In the light of the submissions, this
application is dismissed. The petitioner shall
however be at liberty to take recourse to
appropriate remedial measures, if he is
aggrieved by the orders of the Court passed in
the earlier writ application.”
We do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment
passed by the learned Single Judge. This appeal is dismissed.
(M. Y. Eqbal, J)
( R.R. Prasad, J)
Alankar/