IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.485 of 2011 Ruby Kumari & Ors Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 3. 26.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Nobody appears on behalf of the State. Initially these three appellants along with one Harishchandra Majhi preferred a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C.No. 11174 of 2007 against the order dated 3rd July 2007. The said writ petition was dismissed on 25th February 2008. It appears that the appellant no.1 Rubi Kumari preferred another writ petition bearing C.W.J.C.No. 10276 of 2008 and as appears from the order dated 29th August 2008, the said writ petition was disposed of without going into the merits of the case. Learned counsel did not press the application on merit but wanted disposal of representation said to be pending before the Divisional Commissioner. The appellants have represented before the Divisional Commissioner against the order dated 3rd July 2007 which was subject matter of C.W.J.C.No. 11174 of 2007 and their prayer is that the Divisional Commissioner should be directed to dispose of their representation within a reasonable time, particularly because the representation of one Harishchandra Majhi is said to have been disposed of by the Divisional Commissioner favorably. The writ court dismissed the writ petition of the appellants bearing No. 9729 of 2010 by the order under appeal dated 14th February 2011 because it did not approve the filing of the 2nd writ petition and withdrawing the same for disposal of representation without drawing the attention of the learned single judge that earlier writ petition stood dismissed. 2 The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the fact of dismissal of earlier writ petition was mentioned in the last paragraph of C.W.J.C.No. 10276 of 2008 and, hence, it was not a case of suppression of material facts. An important fact tuck out in one of the paragraphs of the writ petition may not serve its purpose, unless the attention of the court is drawn. In our view, while withdrawing the writ petition or not pressing it on merit, counsel for Rubi Kumari who appeared in C.W.J.C.No.10276 of 2008 ought to have drawn attention of the court to the fact of dismissal of earlier writ petition. That was not done. Be as it may, now the innocuous prayer of the appellant is that the Divisional Commissioner should dispose of the representation of the appellants one way or the other. Since the relevant facts have not appeared in this order-sheet, this appeal is disposed of with liberty to the appellants to bring a copy of this order to the notice of the Divisional Commissioner and if he has not disposed of the representation of the appellant so far, he shall dispose of the representation strictly in accordance with law at an early date, preferably within 2 months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. The order of the writ court stands modified to that extent and the appeal is disposed of. Jay/ ( Shiva Kirti Singh,J) ( Shivaji Pandey, J)