BAHUJAN SADAN MORCHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties as also the counsel for the IntervenerApplicant, Ms.Farhana Khatoon, District Superintendent of Education, Lohardagga.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant submitted that on earlier occasion, two writ petitions in the name of Public Interest Litigation, being W.P (PIL) No.1807/2010 and W.P (PIL) No.2970/2011, were filed before this Court for the same relief as has been prayed by the writ petitioner in this petition. W.P (PIL) No.1807/2010 was disposed of, vide order dated 31st August, 2010, upon submitting by the counsel for the petitioner that after filing of that PIL, the Department has taken appropriate steps, so his grievance has been redressed. This Court observed that in view of the above, no further proceeding is required and the PIL was disposed of accordingly. Thereafter the same petitioner, Chakradhar Yadav, who filed W.P (PIL) No.1807/2010, again filed another writ petition, W.P (PIL) No.2970/2011. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that in earlier writ petition also, the petitioner prayed the relief only against the applicant and in the subsequently filed writ petition, W.P (PIL) No.2970/2011, the relief was claimed against the applicant and subsequently filed writ petition, W.P (PIL) No.2970/2011, was dismissed with cost of Rs.50,000/, vide order dated 3rd February, 2012. It is further submitted that in this petition, which has been filed in this Court on 17.12.2011, the applicant has not been impleaded as party but relief nos.1 and 3 specifically are against only the applicant. Counsel for the applicant has also submitted copies of the above order and some documents and submitted that this is a clear case of abuse of the process of court as well as continuous efforts to harass the applicant, who is a lady. It is also submitted that Annexure ­ 2 annexed in this petition is a letter given by the Jharkhand Prathmik Shikshak Sangh raising the same compliant against the applicant and in earlier two writ petitions also there are copies of the representation submitted by the Jharkhand Prathmik Shikshak Sangh. It is submitted that the petitioner how has placed on record the copy of the said representation of the Jharkhand Prathmik Shikshak Sangh, with which he has no connection. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the applicant, this petition is also liable to be dismissed with heavy cost.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the writ petitioner is a registered society and is raising causes of social importance, details of which have been given in the supplementary affidavit filed by the writ petitioner. It is also submitted that Annexure ­ 4 and 6 reveal involvement of number of Government officials and petitioner has prayed for taking action against those persons along with the applicant, who was the head of the Department at that time. It is submitted that the Deputy Commissioner has not only recommended for initiation of action departmentally but also recommended for lodging of FIR for criminal conspiracy and for commission of other offence by these persons. A sanction has also been sought for prosecuting them but the State has not taken any action, apart from the action taken against the applicant, who has stated that departmental enquiry has been initiated against her.