DHANBAHADUR GHORTI Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Rule obtained on an application by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against an order of the Deputy Commissioner, dated 5 -10 -51 and notice was served on the Deputy Commissioner, Garo Hills to show cause why the order petitioned against should not be set aside or why such further order or orders should not be passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised as to the competence of this application by the learned Senior Government Advocate under Rule 9 of Chapter V -A of the Assam High Court Rules published under the Assam Gazette Notification of 25th July, 1950. The Rules under Chapter V -A were framed for covering applications for Directions, Orders or Writs (other than writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and R. 9 thereof runs as follows :

(3.) IN connection with this petition, no Rule was issued on the Deputy Commissioner to show cause against issue of any writ though there was a prayer for the issue of a writ of mandamus but he was asked to show cause as to the validity of the order itself which was challenged on the ground that certain fundamental rights of the petitioner had suffered thereby. The facts that came up, before me for adjudication sitting singly, were exactly the same and my judgment, therefore, covered the alleged breach of the fundamental rights as well as the validity of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The Rule was discharged by me, the result of which is refusal on the part of this Court to interfere with the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 5 -10 -51. The present petition is practically a replica of the previous petition filed under Rule 22, Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in the Garo Hills District, along with Article 226, of the Constitution of India, and there is no mention of any new facts. In this view, apart from Rule 9, Assam High Court Rules, as framed and' published in the Gazette Notification of 25 -7 -1950, my decision in the earlier case hits the petition and we are constrained to say that the present petition is incompetent.