The Court observed a conflict between the petitioner's claim for review under Shivdeo Singh and the impugned order passed in compliance with a prior writ proceeding without notice. The Court held that as review is the prayer, no direct interference with the cancellation was warranted.
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.1625 of 2016
======================================================
Mantosh Kumar Mahto Son of SRi Dina Mahto Resident of village - Pipari Singhai, Police Station - Panapur, District - Saran at Chapra
... ... Petitioner
Versus
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Choudhary Shyam Nandan For the Respondent/s : Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, AC to AAG 6 ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER
It is submitted by Mr. Choudhary Shyam Nandan, Advocate, that he would be availing of remedy of review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in light of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of Shivdeo Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1963 SC 1909 . It is submitted that cancellation of petitioner’s selection as Kishan Salahkar has been made in compliance of certain orders passed
Patna High Court CWJC No.1625 of 2016(4) dt.14-02-2019 2/2
in CWJC No. 20231 of 2013, wherein neither notices were given to the petitioner nor the petitioner had appeared. However, he submits that since the order has been passed in the said manner, the impugned order (Annexure 10) dated 1.12.2015 cancelling his selection as Kishan Salahkar should be set aside.
The two prayers made by the petitioner cannot coexist. If the petitioner has to avail the remedy of review in terms of the judgment of Apex Court referred to herein above, there is no occasion for this Court at the moment to interfere with the cancellation of his selection under the impugned order dated 1.12.2015 passed in compliance of CWJC No. 20231 of 2013.
With the liberty aforesaid the writ petition is
dismissed.
(Madhuresh Prasad, J.)
SNkumar/-
U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition filed for review under Article 226 in light of Shivdeo Singh vs. State of Punjab should allow the Court to interfere with the cancellation order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shivdeo Singh vs. State of PunjabReferred¶21
AIR 1963 SC 1909 · Who else cites this
Mantosh Kumar Mahto
The State Of Bihar
Madhuresh Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
