ORDER : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. 1. Heard Mr. Abhishek Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned A.A.G. on behalf of the State of Jharkhand. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 26.11.2010 contained in Annexure-8 whereby it was decided that the petitioner is not entitled for payment of gratuity. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 31.12.2006 whereby the pension and gratuity of the petitioner has been withheld. 3. This matter was listed on 20.06.2019 and the matter was adjourned for 21.06.2019. On 21.06.2019, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied in the case of Dr. Parimal Chakravarty Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. in C.W.J.C. No. 5485 of 2017 which was decided on 19.06.2019 and submitted before this Court that the case of the petitioner is fully covered by this case and on the same date this Court also framed certain issues in this case and at the instance of the learned counsel for the respondent-State, the matter was adjourned to be listed on 22.07.2019. This Court requested the learned A.G. to address the Court on the issue framed by this Court. Learned A.G. in its turn assigned the matter to Mr. Manoj Tandon learned A.A.G. on behalf of the respondent State. The matter was again listed on 26.08.2019, when this matter was taken up the learned A.A.G. appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand, pointed out that this petitioner has already preferred a writ petition which was numbered as W.P.(S) No. 1353 of 2011 which was dismissed on 29.10.2015. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner took time to examine as to why this happened and accordingly, the matter was adjourned for 27.08.2019. On 27.08.2019, when this matter was taken up, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner tried to justify the stand of the petitioner by way of placing various Annexures of the writ petition. At this Stage Mr. Manoj Tandon pointed out that he spent sleepless night and after much perseverance he has been able to find out that the petitioner has also preferred a L.P.A. being L.P.A. No. 16 of 2016 which is against the order dated 29.10.2015 passed by a co-ordinate Bench in W.P.(S) No. 1353 of 2011, the L.P.A. is still pending. Manoj Tandon pointed out that he spent sleepless night and after much perseverance he has been able to find out that the petitioner has also preferred a L.P.A. being L.P.A. No. 16 of 2016 which is against the order dated 29.10.2015 passed by a co-ordinate Bench in W.P.(S) No. 1353 of 2011, the L.P.A. is still pending. On 27.08.2019, again the learned counsel for the petitioner took time to place some judgment as he was not armed with the judgment on which he is relying. Accordingly, the matter was listed on 28.08.2019. 4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition. But, seeing the conduct of this petitioner this Court is not inclined to permit the petitioner to simply withdraw the writ petition. 5. Mr. Tandon, submits that this petitioner is an accused in 24 fodder scams cases out of which in 14 cases the petitioner had already been convicted. He referred paragraph no. 3 of the counter-affidavit and submits that this petitioner is an accused in fodder scam cases the details of the cases are as follows:- (i) R.C. 3(A)/01-R (ii) R.C.2(A)/98-Pat, (iii) R.C.2(A)/01-R, (iv) R.C. 5(A)/2000-Pat. (v) R.C. 48(A)/96-Pat. (vi) R.C. 35(A)/96-Pat. (vii) R.C. 55(A)/96-Pat. (viii) R.C. 31(A)/96-Pat. (ix) R.C. 47(A)/96-Pat. (x) R.C. 50(A)/96-Pat. (xi) R.C. 24(A)/96-Pat. (xii) R.C. 26(A)/96-Pat. (xiii) R.C. 53(A)/96-Pat. (xiv) R.C. 54(A)/96-Pat. (xv) R.C. 56(A)/96-Pat. (xvi) R.C. 32(A)/96-Pat. (xvii) R.C. 66(A)/96-Pat. (xviii) R.C. 43(A)/96-Pat. (xix) R.C. 51(A)/96-Pat. (xx) R.C. 52(A)/96-Pat. (xxi) R.C. 57(A)/96-Pat. (xxii) R.C. 46(A)/96-Pat. (xxiii) R.C. 20(A)/96-Pat. (xxiv) R.C. 68(A)/96-Pat. In different cases, the petitioner has been convicted and punished with rigorous imprisonment for 5 to 6 years and above and fine have also been imposed upon the petitioner up to Rs. 50,00,000 to 1,00,00,000/-. 6. For the self-same relief the petitioner has preferred two writ petitions, the earlier was numbered as W.P.(S) No.1353 of 2011 and in the present writ petition, the petitioner has not disclosed about filing of the earlier writ petition. When this matter was heard on different dates on that point of time also, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been pointed out that the petitioner has earlier preferred a writ petition with regard to the same prayer. In both the writ petitions the counsel is same. 7. When this matter was heard on different dates on that point of time also, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been pointed out that the petitioner has earlier preferred a writ petition with regard to the same prayer. In both the writ petitions the counsel is same. 7. Only when the learned A.A.G. pointed out this fact, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prayed before this Court to allow him to withdraw this writ petition. Mr. Tandon pointed out that in the file relating to this Case the reference of the earlier writ petition was there, but, in spite of that how that fact is missing in the counter-affidavit is the matter of inquiry. 8. It cannot be said that the mistake was a bona-fide or it was due to inadvertence. In view of the gross concealment of the fact by the petitioner about the filing of the earlier writ petition it appears that the writ petitioner is doing nothing than Bench Hunting and this Court deprecate the action of the petitioner. The petitioner who is convicted in 14 fodder scam cases tried to dupe this Court. This Court has also taken into account the fact that how in the counter–affidavit this fact has not been disclosed that this petitioner has earlier preferred a writ petition. So this is on the State to look into the matter as how in the counter-affidavit nothing has been disclosed about the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner. Only at the instance of learned A.A.G. that fact came to the knowledge of this Court. Another doctrine which cannot be lost sight that the Court ordinarily cannot permit two parallel remedies in respect of the same subject matter, reference may be made to Jai Singh V. Union of India & Ors. reported in (1977) 1 SCC 1 . This is a very serious matter that the institution like High Court has been duped by this petitioner who is accused in 24 fodder scam cases out of which in 14 cases he has been convicted and he has having guts to mislead the High Court. 9. In view of the above facts and seeing the conduct of this petitioner the writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lac) which must be deposited within four weeks before the Member Secretary, JHALSA. 10. 9. In view of the above facts and seeing the conduct of this petitioner the writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lac) which must be deposited within four weeks before the Member Secretary, JHALSA. 10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Chief Secretary of the Government of Jharkhand and respondent no. 2 – Secretary, Animal, Husbandry & Fisheries Department and they will examine as to how the statement regarding the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner was missing in the counter-affidavit. They may initiate proper proceeding against the erring persons. 11. In view of the above directions and observations, the writ petition stands dismissed.