Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1439 (PAT)

Prakash Dubey v. Union Of India

2013-12-11

RAMESH KUMAR DATTA

body2013
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the Union of India as also learned counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh. No one appears for the State of Bihar. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents on the last date had raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition stating that the five petitioners had earlier filed C.W.J.C. No.3742 of 2010 which was permitted to be withdrawn by order dated 3.3.2010 and, therefore, the present writ application is not maintainable since no opportunity was sought or granted by this Court to file a fresh writ application. A copy of the earlier writ petition has been produced before me to show that practically verbatim the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Upon the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the petitioners sought an adjournment to answer on the issue of maintainability since the matter appears to be covered by a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarguja Transport Service vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal M.P., Gwalior and others: A.I.R. 1987 S.C.88. Today learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the question before the Division Bench of this Court in the earlier writ petition was by way of public interest litigation in the interest of public. It is further submitted that the earlier proceedings did not have the same nature of litigation as it was for vindication of rights of the general public, whereas the petitioners have now approached this Court for vindication of their individual rights. 5. In support of the aforesaid stand, learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Sankla vs. Vikram Cement etc.: 2008 AIR S.C.W.7923 in paragraph Nos. 52 and 53 of which it has been held as follows:- “52. On the facts of the case, however, we are unable to uphold the argument on behalf of the workmen that the Company did not want to prosecute the petitions and had given up its claim against the order passed by the Labour Court and confirmed by the Industrial Court. The record reveals that the Company filed one writ petition against one employee which was registered as Writ Petition No.3060 of 2005. It also filed another petition against the remaining employees (236) which was registered as Writ Petition No.3471 of 2005. The record reveals that the Company filed one writ petition against one employee which was registered as Writ Petition No.3060 of 2005. It also filed another petition against the remaining employees (236) which was registered as Writ Petition No.3471 of 2005. Since the other petition was against several employees, the Registry of the High Court raised an objection that it was under “defect”. It was, therefore, not placed for admission-hearing. In an order, dated October 3, 2005, the Court noted that the learned counsel for the Company prayed for time “to remove the defects pointed by the office.” The prayer was granted. It also appears that according to the Registry, there were practical difficulties and logistic problems since the petition was against more than 200 employees. The learned counsel for the Company, therefore, on December 14, 2005, did not “press” the petition and petition was accordingly dismissed as not pressed. The said order was passed on December 14, 2005. Immediately thereafter, in January, 2006, separate petitions were filed by the Company against the workmen. It is thus clear that it was not a case of abandonment or giving up of claim by the Company. But, in view of office objection, practical difficulty and logistic problem, the petitioner-Company did not proceed with an “omnibus” and composite petition against several workmen and filed separate petition as suggested by the Registry of the High Court. 53. There is an additional reason also for coming to this conclusion on the basis of which it can be said that the Company was prosecuting the matter and there was no intention to leave the matter. As is clear, Writ Petition No.3060 of 2005 which was filed against one employee was very much alive and was never “withdrawn/not pressed”. If really the Company wanted to give up the claim, it would have withdrawn that petition as well. Thus, from the circumstances in their entirety, we hold that the objection raised by the learned counsel for the workmen has no force and is rejected.” 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that in the pith and substance of Sarguja Transport Service case (supra) once the petitioners have abandoned their rights, they cannot be permitted to agitate again, whereas in the earlier writ petition the petitioners had abandoned only their rights for agitating the issue for public and not their individual rights. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that in the pith and substance of Sarguja Transport Service case (supra) once the petitioners have abandoned their rights, they cannot be permitted to agitate again, whereas in the earlier writ petition the petitioners had abandoned only their rights for agitating the issue for public and not their individual rights. 7. Considering the fact that the pleadings in the two writ petitions are practically the same as alleged by learned counsel for the respondents and not denied by learned counsel for the petitioners, it is evident that even in the earlier writ petition the petitioners had specifically put forth their claims on the basis of their cultivator rights over the land in question which, according to them, is coming in cultivating possession of their ancestors since 1963 and 1964 and that by the action of the respondents, the petitioners were directly affected. 8. In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that earlier the petitioners were agitating the matter only in the interest of public, whereas now they have come forward to agitate the matter for their private rights. This is not a matter where the petitioners did have any personal interest in the earlier litigation, rather it is a case where the petitioners have been pursuing their rights by filing a writ petition in the form of Public Interest Litigation with exactly the same relief in which they also would be the beneficiaries. The withdrawal of the earlier writ petition without any permission from the Court to file a fresh writ petition would thus debar the petitioners from filing a fresh writ petition for the same relief, even though not as a PIL since the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the decision in the case of Sarguja Transport Service (supra). 9. So far as reliance on the case of Ramesh Chandra Sankla (supra) is concerned, the same was not at all a case of withdrawal in the sense that since the Registry of the High Court raised objection to the maintainability and practical difficulties and logistic problem in the writ petition against 236 workmen, the same was not pressed and thereafter separate writ petitions against individual workmen were filed and thus the Court came to the conclusion that there was no abandonment of claim. Such is not the position in the present matter. Such is not the position in the present matter. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, the writ application is not maintainable and it is, accordingly, dismissed.