BECHAN SINGH YADAV Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the pleadings of review petition. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that all other employees of the Organization of the petitioner were accommodated in Agriculture Department but the case of the petitioner was not taken up for consideration, and finally his services were dispensed with in 1993. Therefore, the petitioner filed a writ petition in 1993, wherein no interim order was passed. Therefore, he filed an application for withdrawal of the petition on 11.5.1993. During the pendency of application, barely after two days, the petitioner filed another Writ Petition on 13.5.1993. It appears that the earlier writ petition remained pending and was withdrawn later after 11 years in 2004. but during its pendency, the petitioner obtained an interim order in the second writ petition soon after its filing in 1993. on the first date of hearing without disclosing the factum of pendency. The second writ petition with interim relief came up for final hearing before a learned single Judge in 2011 and it was allowed.

(2.) The State filed an special appeal wherein the impugned order dated 30th January, 2012, was passed by a Co-ordinate Division Bench in which one of us (Ritu Raj Awasthi. J.) was a member, with following observations which are reproduced as under:

(3.) Learned counsel for review-petitioner submitted that it was a bona fide mistake on the part of petitioner that he filed two writ petitions. He filed the second one, namely, 3770 (S/S) of 1993 on 13.5.1993, after filing of application for withdrawal of the first one namely, Writ Petition No. 2208 (S/S) of 1993 on 11.5.1993.