PRAHLAD KUMAR CHOUBEY Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on question of maintainability of the petition.

(2.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when W.P.(S) No. 3176 of 2005 was earlier listed before this Court on 16.07.2012, the counsel for the petitioner got confused, therefore, he could not present the case of the petitioner before the Court. In these circumstances, somehow, the prayer was made for withdrawal of the petition and the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. Realizing that a mistake was committed, Review Petition was filed by the petitioner. It was dismissed as withdrawn with a clarification that the Court has not expressed any opinion for the non-maintainability of the writ petition, therefore, now the petitioner has filed second writ petition. There is no intention of giving up the issue. It is only a matter of mistake that the petition came to be withdrawn. Reliance is placed in the matter of Tahil Ram Issardas Sadarangani v. Ramchand Issardas Sadarangani and another, 1993 AIR(SC) 1182; Ramakrishna Vivekananda Mission v. State of West Bengol and others, 2004 AIR(SCW) 7254 and Malkiat Singh and another v. Joginder Singh and others, 1998 AIR(SC) 258.

(3.) A perusal of order dated 16.07.2012 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3176 of 2005 shows that the case was represented by a counsel and the counsel made statement that he may be permitted to withdraw the petition. Permission was accordingly granted and the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. There is nothing, either in the order or in the application filed in the petition to indicate background, which let to withdrawal of the petition and show that the petitioner wants to pursue the matter. The reason assigned in the petition is that the counsel, in confusion, submitted before the Court that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the petition. In the considered opinion of this Court the petition is liable to be rejected at the threshold. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 16.07.2012.