STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH EXCISE COMMISSIONER, GOVERNMENT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI. Vs. MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, JHARKHAND, RANCHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This L.P.A. has been preferred after a delay of 183 days. However, after going through the impugned judgment, we are of the considered opinion that the State is not serious about its own litigation policy which is apparent from the facts of this case. The present writ petition of the State was disposed of by following the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 6650 of 2006*, in the case of State of Jharkhand vs. Member Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi and Another with analogous cases vide order dated 9.7.2009. When it was pointed out before the Single Bench that controversy has already been decided by the said decision dated 9.7.2009, the counsel for the State could not dispute this position and therefore, the writ petition of the State was disposed of by following the judgment delivered in W.P.(C) No. 6650 of 2006.

(2.) The State has now preferred the appeal against the said order dated 2.8.2010. It appears that since there is a decision given in the writ petition preferred by the State by a Single Bench of this Court and since such order is appealable in the High Court before the Division Bench, therefore, only it appears that this L.P.A. has been preferred and that has been done without application of mind.

(3.) It appears that State is under the impression that still they can afford to prefer an appeal against the judgment passed by a Single Bench of this Court simply because there is an appealable judgment, without knowing whether the judgement is in fact against the State or not and whether the judgment has been obtained by the State itself or not, and whether the State has already accepted the earlier decision given by the High Court and even without knowing whether the judgment delivered by the High Court on earlier litigations has attained the finality because of not challenging the said judgment and without knowing whether the L.P.A. against the decision of the Single Bench of this Court has been preferred and that was dismissed by the Division Bench and whether the Hon'ble Supreme Court also upheld the said decision.