Asok Potsangam, J.;- Heard Mr. S. Jayantakumar, learned se­nior counsel appearing on behalf of the peti­tioner and Mr. H. Raghumani, learned Gov­ernment Advocate appearing on behalf of the Government respondents No. 1 to 4. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India had been filed by the petitioner mainly with the following prayers :- "(i) to issue a writ in the nature of Manda­mus, or any other appropriate Writ or order, di­recting the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for re-allotment of the land in question (described in the Schedule) forthwith for running the S.K. Oil business before giving allotment to any other person/authority and to maintain status quo in respect of the land in question till such allotment." 3. The case of the petitioner, as projected in the writ petition, is that he was allotted a piece of land measuring an area of .52acre under CS Dag No. 556 of Village No.59, Oinam Thingel for opening an Oil pump/S.K. Oil depot vide order dated 24.11.1984 is­sued by the Government of Manipur. The al­lotment in question, as referred to above, was cancelled by the Government vide order No. 21/91/82-R(A)dated23rdJuly, 1991 on the ground that the said land which fell within the reserved area for Laipham was allotted to the petitioner without deserving the same. The cancel lation order was challenged by the pe­titioner in Civil Rule No. 374 of 1991, which was dismissed on 28.8.1997. Against the aforesaid dismissal order, the petitioner pre­ferred a Writ Appeal No. 175 of 1997, which was disposed of on 27.2.2003 without inter­fering with the aforesaid dismissal order, However, the Hon'ble Division Bench ob­served that in the event of reservation of the land, in question, for allotment, the case of the petitioner-appellant would also be con­sidered for allotment in case he applied for the same. 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench, as referred to above, the patta issued in favour of the petitioner in re­spect of the land, in question, was cancelled by the Government vide order No. 1001/20/2004-DSLR dated 14th December, 2004 as it is evident from Annexure-A/10 to the writ petition. 5. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid cancellation order dated 14.12.2004 by fil­ing Writ Petition(C) No. 1050 of 2004 and the same was dismissed by this Court after hearing the parties, vide order dated 07.11.2007. 5. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid cancellation order dated 14.12.2004 by fil­ing Writ Petition(C) No. 1050 of 2004 and the same was dismissed by this Court after hearing the parties, vide order dated 07.11.2007. In the aforesaid writ petition, the following prayers have been made "(i) to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, quashing the or­der of cancellation dated 14.12.2004 (Annexure-A/10) issued by the Director of Settlement and Land Records, Manipur forthwith; (ii) to issue a direction to respondents 1, 2 and 3 not to allot the land in question to the Chief Engineer (Power), Electricity Department, Manipur and/or the Electricity Department, Manipur for construction of 33/1 K.V Sub-Sta­tion, etc. in any manner ; (iii) to issue a direction to respondents 1, 2 and 3 to consider the petitioner's case for allot­ment of the land in question forerunning his S.K. Oil business forthwith; (iv) to pass an interim order to stay/sus­pend the operation of the order of cancellation dated 14.12.2004 (Annexure-A/10) pending dis­posal of the writ petition; (v) to issue a direction to the respondents not to use the land in question for construction of 33/11 KV Sub-Station or the like pending dis­posal of the writ petition." 5.1 The main prayer of the petitioner in the aforesaid case is that the case of the peti­tioner should be considered for allotment of the land, in question and the respondents be restrained from allotting the land to the Elec­tricity Department for construction of 33/11 KV Sub-Station. The above would demon­strate that the petitioner is aware of the pro­cess of allotment being made in favour of the Electricity Department as far back as in 2004. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 7.11.2007 wherein this Court held that a second writ petition relating to the same subject matter was not entertain able. In addition to the above, this Court has also given the following finding :- "9. After the first round of litigation, it is settled that the land in question belongs to Govt. whether the said land is reserved or not. When the land belongs to Government, it is the Gov­ernment who is to decide the law covering the field. Court cannot interfere with such policy decision of the Govt. After the first round of litigation, it is settled that the land in question belongs to Govt. whether the said land is reserved or not. When the land belongs to Government, it is the Gov­ernment who is to decide the law covering the field. Court cannot interfere with such policy decision of the Govt. taken for the interest of the public at large, as by this time it is settled that private interest cannot override public in­terest." 6. It is not in dispute at the Bar that the findings recorded and the conclusion reached by this Courting W.P.(C)No. 1050of2004 has not been challenged by the petitioner ei­ther by filing a writ appeal or by filing an ap­plication for review. Therefore, it has assumed finality and the writ petitioner is bound by the findings recorded by this Court in the earlier proceedings. 7. The instant writ petition had been filed, more or less, with the same prayers made in W.R(C) No. 1050 of 2004 as can be seen from the prayers quoted above. In any part of the instant writ petition, no disclosure had been made about the dismissal of the W.P.(C) No. 1050 of 2004 as devoid of merit though a casual reference has been made in para No.44 of the writ petition stating that the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of with certain observations. The effect of dismissal of a writ petition is very different from the dis­posal of a writ petition and the casual refer­ence made in para No.44 of the writ petition is somewhat misleading and this non-disclo­sure of dismissal of the aforesaid writ petition would, in fact, disentitle the petitioner to any relief from this Court in exercise of its discre­tionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A person seeking relief from the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court, should not only come with clean hand but also a clean heart. 8. Yesterday i.e. 28.3.2011, when the matter was taken up, the learned Government Advocate produced a copy of the order dated 22nd November, 2008, issued by the Under Secretary, Revenue Department, Gov­ernment of Manipur, allotting a part of the land in question in favour of the Medical De­partment and another part in favour of the Electricity Department for the purpose of ex­pansion of Public Health Centre and office building of the Electricity Department. A copy of the order was also furnished to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Today, the learned Government Advocate had produced file No. 21/72/2008-R of Revenue Department with the subject "Allotment of Lands for Expansion of P.H.C. at Kakwa/Singjamei-Imphal West". The proposal for allotment in favour of Medical Department and Electricity Department were considered at all levels, as reflected in Note Nos. 3,4,5,7,8,9,10,12 and 13. The proposal for the aforesaid allotment was approved by the Minister on 29.10.2008 and thereafter, draft for allotment was prepared after obtaining the approval of the Principal Secretary (Revenue), Government of Manipur. Careful perusal of the notes and documents available on the aforesaid file, would leave doubt that the land in question had never been dereserved for al­lotment to any individual/public or private body. 9. At this stage, it may be relevant for us to refer to Section 14 of the MLR & LR Act. Section 14(1) deals with the power of Deputy Commissioner to allot land, which has now been amended by stipulating that such allot­ment under Section 14(1) needs prior ap­proval of the State Government. Section 14(2) empowers to State Government to allot any land........"for any purpose of public utility" on such conditions as may be prescribed. Rule 18 of the MLR & LR (Allotment of Land) Rules, 1962 stipulates conditions in the case of allotment U/S 14(2) of the MLR & LR Act, There cannot be any denial that the aforesaid allotment order of the land, in ques­tion, in favour of the Medical Department and Electricity Department is for public utility pur­pose. As already held by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1050 of 2004 that private interest can­not override public interest and that the Gov­ernment has to decide how to utilize its land whether reserved or not and this Court is not supposed to interfere with the policy deci­sion in this regard. However, I will restrain myself from commenting any further on the aforesaid allotment order, which is not under challenge in this proceeding. 10. I need not discuss in detail as to whether this third writ petition on the same subject matter is entertain able or not in as much as a clear finding has already been re­corded by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1050 of 2004 that second writ petition was not entertain able on the same subject and between the same parties. I need not discuss in detail as to whether this third writ petition on the same subject matter is entertain able or not in as much as a clear finding has already been re­corded by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1050 of 2004 that second writ petition was not entertain able on the same subject and between the same parties. The substantive prayer of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1050 of 2004 is similar with the prayer made in this third writ petition, i.e., allotment of the land in ques­tion, in favour of the petitioner. When the sec­ond writ petition was found not entertainable by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1050 of 2004, the question of entertaining a third writ peti­tion on the same subject matter does not arise at all. From the above discussions, it appears that the right of the petitioner for consider­ation of allotment of the land in question, may arise only when the Government dereserves the land in terms of the observations made by the Hon'ble Division Bench's order dated 27.2.2003 passed in W.A. No. 175 of 1997 but in case, the Government choose not to dereserve the land but allot to any Govern­ment department to the exclusion of any indi­vidual, the right to be considered for allot­ment to the petitioner can not arise. There is no scope for any confusion in understanding the language of the Hon'ble Division Bench in this regard. 11. In earlier W.P.(C) No. 1050 of 2004, this Court has already given a finding that it is for the Government to decide how to utilise its land whether it is reserved or not and in absence of challenging the same, the afore­said finding is binding upon the petitioner. The petitioner has also clearly maintained in para No.45 of the instant writ petition that the land in question, has not been dereserved. As al­ready discussed above, the right to be con­sidered for allotment in terms of the Division Bench's observation will arise only when the land is dereserved for allotment to public. Reservation or dereservation shall depend on the wisdom of the Government, which the Court is not supposed to interfere with and this Court can only reiterate the findings re­corded in W.P.(C) No. 1050 of 2004. Reservation or dereservation shall depend on the wisdom of the Government, which the Court is not supposed to interfere with and this Court can only reiterate the findings re­corded in W.P.(C) No. 1050 of 2004. There is no dispute that all land belongs to State Government in terms of Section 11 of the MLR & LR Act except in case o f those cases exempted therein and therefore, it is for the Government to decide which of the land to be allotted to which department of the Gov­ernment. Mr. R, Raghumani, learned Govern­ment Advocate submits that the writ petition has become in fructuous in view of the order dated 12.11.2008 and in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of this Court, it is for him to challenge this order. This submis­sion is noted. 12. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, there is no merit in the case, apart from being infructuous. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit. 13. A copy of the order dated 12.11.2008 shall form apart of the record.