NIZAMUDDIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has arisen out of the judgment and order, dated 11.9.2013, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4270 of 2006, whereby the writ petitioner-appellant's application, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of appropriate writ or writs commanding the respondents to pay the admitted dues/fees of the petitioner-appellant for the work, which the petitioner-appellant had done, in his capacity as the then Government Pleader, Civil Court, Patna, stands rejected. We have heard Mr. Nawal Kishore Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Principal Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State.

(2.) The facts, which have given rise to the present appeal, may, in brief, be set out as under:--

(3.) Resisting the writ petition, at the very threshold, Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Principal Additional Advocate General, has submitted that this appeal is misconceived inasmuch as the exercise of power by a High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is discretionary in nature and if a Single Judge declines to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground that the writ petition involves disputed question of facts, a letters patent appeal may not, ordinarily, be entertained inasmuch a writ appeal is really not a statutory appeal preferred against the judgment and order of an inferior to the superior court; such an appeal is, rather, an intra-court appeal and, in such an appeal, a Division Bench would not interfere with an order of Single Bench unless there is a patent error or the judgment is against established or settled principle of law. This apart, points out by the learned Principal Additional Advocate General, in a given case, if two views are possible and a view, which is reasonable and logical, has been taken by a Single Judge, the other view would not be adopted by the Division Bench and it is the view, taken by a Single Judge, which should, normally, be allowed to prevail. It is the contention of the learned Principal Additional Advocate General that since the writ petition has been dismissed on the ground that the writ petition involves disputed question of facts and, therefore, a writ proceeding is not an appropriate proceeding, this issue may not be overridden in appeal.