Letters Patent Appeal No. 942 OF 2001 (Against the Judgment and Order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7531 of 2001) ------- RAMASHRAY SINGH -----------------------(Appellant) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. -----------(Respondents) ------ P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BARIN GHOSH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. PRASAD Barin Ghosh & C.M. Prasad, JJ. A writ petition was filed by the appellant, which was registered as C.W.J.C. No. 1538 of 1994, praying for setting aside of the order terminating the order by which the appellant was regularized. This writ petition was taken up for hearing by a learned Single Judge of this Court, when His lordship by an order dated 14th February, 1995 disposed of the same by the following order:- Heard the parties. After some argument, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is permitted to withdraw this application. Since the petitioner has worked for some time, it is directed that if in future for filling up posts advertisement is issued in newspaper, the petitioner may also apply for the same and if he is otherwise found eligible and suitable, age bar in relation to the petitioner shall be relaxed. With the aforesaid direction, this 2 application is disposed of. Similar was the fate of many other persons similarly situated to that of the appellant. They also approached this Court by filing independent writ petitions. Those writ petitions were allowed and accordingly, the orders terminating the orders by which they were regularized were quashed. The appellant after having had come to learn about the success of those others filed a writ petition registered as C.W.J.C. no. 7531 of 2001. By the Judgment and Order under appeal, the said writ petition has been dismissed on the ground that in view of the public policy laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarguja Transport Service Vrs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior and Ors., reported in A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 88, once a writ petition is filed and the same is withdrawn, with the same cause of action the self-same writ petitioner cannot re-approach the writ Court. The learned counsel appearing in support of the appeal by referring to the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of SARVA SHRAMIK SANGHATHANA(KV), MUMBAI Vrs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. reported in 2008(1) S.C.C. 494, 3 and in particular, paragraph-19 thereof submitted that having regard to the observations made by the learned Single Judge, while disposing of the earlier writ petition by the order dated 14th February, 1995, it cannot be held that there was any mala fide on the part of the appellant in seeking to withdraw the earlier writ petition and as such, the ratio of the Judgment of Sarguja Transport Service (supra) has no application. It is true that by the Order dated 14th February, 1995, the appellant was permitted to withdraw the writ petition but the order dated 14th February, 1995 does not record that any prayer was made by or on behalf of the appellant to withdraw the writ petition. Despite permitting the appellant to withdraw the writ petition, though without any prayer to that effect by or on behalf of the appellant, certain directions were given by the order dated 14th February, 1995 in favour of the appellant and ultimately with those directions, the writ petition was disposed of by the order dated 14th February, 1995. In law, the moment, the Court passes an order permitting withdrawal of an application, which permission can only be accorded, provided a prayer to that effect has 4 been made, the Court has no paper before it to record any direction. As such, the logical conclusion would be that by order dated 14th February, 1995 the earlier writ petition of the appellant was not permitted to be withdrawn, but the same was disposed of with directions as contained therein and in consequence thereof, the lis contained in the said writ petition came to be decided finally, which could only be re-opened by seeking a review of the order dated 14th February, 1995, but not by a separate writ petition. In the circumstances, while we do not interfere with the Judgment and Order under appeal but make it amply clear that the present Judgment as well as the Judgment and Order under appeal will not stand in the way of the appellant applying for review of the said order dated 14th February, 1995. Patna High Court, The 6th August, 2008, S.B.P./N.A.F.R. (Barin Ghosh, J.) (C.M. Prasad, J.) 5