Harendra Pratap Singh, Advocate vs The State of Bihar and Others

Jyoti Saran, J.—Heard Mr. Harendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Mohan Kumar Singh, Assisting Counsel to G.P. 20 for the State.

The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 22.2 2010 as contained in Annexure-48 and the order dated 25.3.2010 as contained in Annexure-51 issued under the signaturer of the Deputy Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, whereby the request of the petitioner for creation of Shahabad Division with Arrah as Headquarters, has been rejected.

It so appears that a similar issue was raised by the petitioner in public interest giving rise to C.W.J.C. No. 2820 of 2010 Ed--Reported in 2010 (2) PLJR 416 and a Division Bench of this Court upon consideration of the issue was pleased to dismiss the writ petition vide order dated 18.2.2010, in the following terms:--

In our considered opinion, such a prayer cannot be dwelled upon and delved into, for the simon pure reason that a mandamus to that extent cannot be issued. Hence, we have no other option but to dismiss the writ petition in limine, which we direct.

Learned counsel submits that the cause of action has arisen to the petitioner by reason of the order(s) which has been passed subsequent to the order of the Division Bench.

This Court dose not concur with the submissions of learned counsel.

Considering the circumstances that the very issue as raised in this writ petition, has already been raised before this Court, deliberated upon by a Division Bench of this Court and has been rejected, any subsequent order would not bring about a cause of action for the petitioner to maintain a fresh writ petition on the selfsame issue. The writ petition is barred by issue estoppel and res judicata and is dismissed accordingly.