STATE OF BIHAR Vs. SURENDRA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order dtd. 23/1/2001, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in State of Bihar Vs. Surendra Prasad is under challenge in this appeal. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Division Bench of the High Court committed an error in passing the impugned order without examining the contentions raised in the L.P.A.; the L.P.A. was disposed of simply following the judgment rendered in (Ajit Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar). The L.P.A. filed against the order in the said writ petition is still pending in the High Court for disposal. The learned counsel further submitted that the concession given on behalf of the State in the case of Babita Prasad Vs. State of Bihar was confined only to the appellants in the said case and the concession was not general in nature so as to apply the same to all the candidates who could subsequently make their claims in subsequent writ petitions. The learned counsel further submitted that the parties cannot wait for a long time and then approach the court to file writ petitions looking to the order made in Babita Prasad aforementioned.

(2.) PER contra, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order in his arguments. He contended that similar orders were passed in a few writ petitions filed before the High Court. The learned Single Judge passed the order in the writ petitions, based on similar orders passed in other writ petitions and the Division Bench of the High Court, in that view, committed no error taking note of the orders passed in similar other writ petitions and rejecting the appeal.

(3.) IN this view and for the reasons stated above, the impugned order is set aside and L.P.A. is remitted to the Division Bench of the High Court for fresh disposal in the light of what is stated above. The Appeal is Disposed of Accordingly. No costs.