CMP No. 6294 of 2021 in CWP No. 2402 of 2008 26.10.2021 Present: Mr. Amit Singh Chandel, Advocate, for the non-applicant/petitioner. Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate, for applicants/respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. K.D. Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr. Het Ram, Advocate, for respondents No. 3 and 4. The instant application has been filed for grant of following relief: “(a) That ex-servicemen should apply for attachment within 5 years of his retirement/superannuation from army etc. It is therefore prayed that the application may be allowed in the interest of justice and the directions may kindly be passed approve the decision dated 27.8.2020 taken by the Board of Directors of applicant Corporation and appropriate additions/modification may kindly be made in the judgment dated 06.01.2011, so as to include the same in the interest of justice and interest of the larger number of the ex-servicemen of the state; that ex-servicemen should apply for attachment within 5 years of his retirement/superannuation from army etc; Such other orders which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the applicant.” 2. Indubitably, the main writ petition is not on the dockets of this Court and has been finally disposed of vide judgment dated 6.1.2011. 3. It is settled law that once the writ petition has finally been decided and proceedings stand terminated the Court becomes functus officio. It is only by filing an application for review of the order passed earlier that the Court may be called upon to examine the issue raised therein. That apart, the Court would by invoking its inherent powers correct some kinds of error, which normally would be arithmetical, grammatical etc. However, such powers would be invoked only in exceptional circumstances to avoid miscarriage of justice. Fraud is genuine, albeit limited, exception to the important principle of finality of litigation upon which the doctrine of functus officio is founded. 4. “Functus officio” is a Latin term meaning having performed his or her office. With regard to an officer or official body, it means without further authority or legal competence because the duties and functions of the original commission have been fully accomplished. 5. “Functus” means having performed and “officio” means office. Thus, the phrase functus officio means having performed his or her office, which in turn means that the public officer is without further authority or legal competence because the duties and functions of the original commission have been fully accomplished. 6. Trayner’s Latin Maxims, 4th Edn. Gives the expression functus officio the following meaning: “Having discharged his official duty. This is said of any one holding a certain appointment, when the duties of his office have been discharged. Thus a Judge, who has decided a question brought before him, is functus officio and cannot review his own decision.” 7. In Wharton’s Law Lexicon, 14th Edn., the expression functus officio is given the meaning, “a person who has discharged his duties, or whose office or authority is at an end.” 8. P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s Law Lexicon gives the expression the meaning, “A term applied to something which once has had a life and power, but which has become of no virtue whatsoever. Thus when an agent has completed the business which he was entrusted his agency is functus officio.” 9. In Black’s Law Dictionary Tenth Edition, meaning of functus officio is : “having performed his or her office (of an officer or official body) without further authority or legal competence because the duties and functions of the original commission have been fully accomplished.” 10. In other words, the authority, which had a life and power, has lost everything on account of completion of purpose/activities/act. 11. Notably, what the petitioner is seeking is virtually a writ of mandamus in a decided case, which is legally impressible”. 12. Thus, it can be concluded from the aforesaid discussion that once the writ petition is finally disposed of by a Court, the Court becomes functus officio, as proceedings stand terminated by final disposal of the writ petition and it is therefore, not open to the Court to re-open the proceedings. The Court will also not invoke the inherent jurisdiction and re-open the proceedings, except for carrying out typographical/clerical errors, as observed above, after the writ petition is disposed of. The Court cannot pass any other order or further order in the writ petition. Consequently, the present application, being not maintainable, is ordered to be dismissed. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge (Jyotsna Rewal Dua) Judge October 26, 2021 (Kalpana)