IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.740 of 2009 AWDESH KUMAR & ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With LPA No.873 of 2009 OM PRAKASH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With LPA No.869 of 2009 RAJAN KUMAR SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With LPA No.882 of 2009 KUMAR BICKRAM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS -------------- 02. 27.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants in all these four appeals and also learned counsel for the State. The main point urged on behalf of the appellants is that the appellants/writ petitioners had challenged the propriety, legality and correctness of a policy decision of the State Government dated 15.04.1999 which was Annexure-4 to the writ petition but the said issue which was the most vital issue appears to have been missed by the writ court for reasons which are not clear from the records. On going through the order under appeal it is found that the - 2 - writ court has proceeded to dismiss the writ petitions on the premise that the policy decision of the State Government dated 15.04.1999 was not under-challenge and therefore the demand of salami for Khas Mahal lands by the Collector, Munger could not be faulted because it is in accordance with the said policy decision of the State Government. A perusal of the writ petition bearing CWJC No. 1912 of 2005 shows that in paragraph 1 the first relief sought for was quashing of the said policy decision dated 15.04.1999. Ground No. IV in paragraph 2 was to the effect that the fixation of salami was contrary to Rule 9 of the Khas Mahal Manual. The policy decision dated 15.04.1999 was annexed as Annexure-4 but the State in its counter-affidavit also chose to annex the same as Annexure-A. The writ court has noticed the policy decision as Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit and thereafter observed that there is no challenge to policy decision dated 15.04.1999. It is admitted at the Bar that in the first writ petition falling for consideration, i.e. CWJC No. 8829 of 2002, the policy decision dated 15.04.1999 was neither - 3 - annexed nor challenged. That may be the reason why the writ court failed to notice the challenge to that policy decision in the other writ petitions. However, interest of justice requires that all writ petitions be treated on equal footing by permitting challenge to the policy decision dated 15.04.1999. The only option for this Court is to either answer the challenge raised before us to the policy decision dated 15.04.1999 or to remit the matter back to the writ court for deciding the relevant issue in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that a decision by the writ court should be preferred because that would safeguard their right of appeal if the decision goes against them. Considering all the facts and circumstances, the common judgment and order under appeal is set aside only for the purpose of remanding the matter back to the writ court so that the issue noticed above by way of challenge to the policy decision dated 15.04.1999 is considered and decided in accordance with law. After deciding the aforesaid issue the writ court will also consider whether consequential reliefs are fit to be granted or not. - 4 - Till the matters are listed before the writ court and decided in accordance with law there shall be an interim order to maintain status quo in respect of possession over the property concerned in terms of stay order passed in writ cases before their final disposal by order under appeal. Vikash/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) (Anjana Prakash, J.)