The High Court dismissed this public interest litigaton filed by an advocate seeking refund of school upgradation amounts and a CBI enquiry. The court held that seeking enforcement of a previous order is not maintainable in a new writ petition.
Writ petition dismissed; Leave to proceed with Enforcement Petition granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13454 of 2014
====================================================== Randhir Kumar, S/o Sri Rajendra Pd. Singh, Advocate, Jubli Hall, Advocate Association, Patna High Court, R/o Dhanauti, P.S. Masauri, District – Patna.
.... .... Respondents.
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh For the State : Mr. Anjani Kumar, AAG-6. For the C.B.I. : Mr. Bipin Kumar Sinha, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) -------
Patna High Court CWJC No.13454 of 2014 (2) dt.09-01-2015 2/2
disposed of on 05.04.2012 directing the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to dispose of the representation dated 22.04.2011 made by the petitioner. It is alleged that no steps have been taken thereon.
Heard Sri Dinu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anjani Kumar, learned counsel for the State and Sri Bipin Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel for the C.B.I.
This is the second round of litigation by the petitioner, in relation to the same dispute and same complaint. In C.W.J.C. No.5944 of 2012, this Court directed the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to dispose of the representation dated 22.04.2011 filed by the petitioner. If it is not complied with, the course of action open to the petitioner is different. It is well settled that a writ petition cannot be filed seeking enforcement of the order passed in another writ petition.
Therefore, this writ petition, is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner, to pursue the remedy in accordance with law.
The Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
(L. Narasimha Reddy,CJ)
(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)
P.S./-Bhardwaj
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the present writ petition seeking enforcement of a previous order is maintainable.
Whether the petitioner can file a new writ petition for refund of upgradation amounts previously sought.
Randhir Kumar
The State of Bihar
The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department
The Director Secondary Education Deptt.
The District Education Officer, Aurangabad
The Union of India
Chief Justice
Rajendra Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
