PRAKASH DUBEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the Union of India as also learned counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh. No one appears for the State of Bihar. Learned counsel for the respondents on the last date had raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition stating that the five petitioners had earlier filed C.W.J.C. No. 3742 of 2010 which was permitted to be withdrawn by order dated 3.3.2010 and, therefore, the present writ application is not maintainable since no opportunity was sought or granted by this Court to file a fresh writ application. A copy of the earlier writ petition has been produced before me to show that practically verbatim the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) Upon the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the petitioners sought an adjournment to answer on the issue of maintainability since the matter appears to be covered by a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal M.P., Gwalior and Others, 1987 AIR(SC) 88.

(3.) Today learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the question before the Division Bench of this Court in the earlier writ petition was by way of public interest litigation in the interest of public. It is further submitted that the earlier proceedings did not have the same nature of litigation as it was for vindication of rights of the general public, whereas the petitioners have now approached this Court for vindication of their individual rights.