Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAVI RANJAN, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, JJ.
Sonu Kumar, son of Raja Prasad Soni and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Jharkhand and Ors. – Respondents
L.P.A. No.735 of 2018 with L.P.A. No.747 of 2018
Decided On : 15-06-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 151 – Government of India Act, 1858 – Section 108 – Fact arises for filing these Letters Patent Appeals are that writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India being W.P.(S) for relief – Held, Court that if matter would not be adjudicated on merit, writ petitioners will suffer irreparable loss but question herein is that such consideration of such submission is not acceptable as because when learned counsel representing writ petitioners with all consciousness has made submission for withdrawal of writ petition in open Court knowing the fact fully that similar issue has already been decided in W.P.(S) and if in such circumstances, writ petition has sought to be withdrawn, basis upon which, writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, considering argument advanced on behalf of appellants, it cannot be recalled on showing mercy as it is settled position of Law that no order can be passed on sympathy – Order by a Court of Law is to be passed as per Law – Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. The matter has been heard through video conferencing with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. There is no complaint about any audio and visual quality.
L.P.A.No.735 of 2018 & L.P.A. No.747 of 2018
Both the appeals have been filed under Clause-10 of Letters Patent of Patna High Court and are directed against the order dated 23.10.2018 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Petition (CMP) No.443 of 2018, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for recall/review/modification of order dated 07.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.2923 of 2018, by which, the writ petition has been allowed to be withdrawn by the learned counsel representing the writ petitioners before the writ Court with the consent of the learned counsel for the respondents, has been rejected by dismissing the aforesaid Civil Miscellaneous Petition.
2. The fact arises for filing these Letters Patent Appeals are that the writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being W.P.(S) No.2923 of 2018 for the following reliefs:-
(b) For grant of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to struck down question No.36,48,34,41,38,7,74,26,59,8 & 12 in question booklet No.72A corresponding to question no.58,2,23,41,38,45,77,21,51,36 & 43 in question booklet No.72B similarly question No.31,2,23,37,9,36,75,13,16,47 & 51 in question booklet No.72C and question No.9,14,10,28,36,56,75,27,44,26 &24 in question booklet code 72 D asked in paper No. II in Jharkhand Police Sub Inspector Limited Competitive Exam 2017 being out of syllabus and wrong in respect of its advertisement being Advertisement No.09/2017;
(c) For grant of a direction to Respondent No.2 to award one marks each to every disputed question and publish a revise result; and
(d) For a direction to the Respondent No.2 to enhance the marks obtained by the petitioners as per the revised result so published.
3. The writ petition was posted for hearing on 07.08.2018 and after making some argument, learned counsel representing the writ petitioners, namely, Mr. Nitish Kumar Singh, sought permission to withdraw the writ petition, which has not been objected by the learned counsel representing the respondents and accordingly, the prayer for withdrawal was allowed and the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, for ready reference, the aforesaid order is being referred hereinbelow:-
Learned counsel for the respondents have no objection for the same.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, the writ application is dismissed as withdrawn.”
The writ petitioners, thereafter, have filed a petition under Section 151 of CPC for grant of recall/review/modification of order dated 07.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.2923 of 2018.
The aforesaid petition has finally been decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court by passing an order on 23.10.2018 and the ground agitated therein has been found to be not acceptable to the writ Court and accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been dismissed, for ready reference, the order dated 23.10.2018 reads hereunder as:-
An order passed by the Civil Court is amenable to scrutiny by the High Court only in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and no letters patent appeal would be mai....
The appeal from an order passed by a single judge under the writ jurisdiction, disposing finally a criminal case, is prohibited due to the specific bar of section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code (....
Provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will apply to all matters on which special or local law is silent.
Point of law : Section 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as is evident from its plain reading, does not mean that the CPC does not apply to the proceedings under special or local laws but only indica....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between administrative, judicial, and quasi-judicial orders, and the implications of maintainability based on the nature of the ord....
The court determined that the maintainability of Letters Patent Appeals against orders of a Single Judge in criminal jurisdiction requires clarification, as existing interpretations may not be consis....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
