IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1313 of 2010 Radha Pandey & Ors. Versus The State of Bihar & Ors. ----------- 03 15.07.2011 Heard Mr.Umesh Prasad Singh for the appellant, Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel No.20 for respondent nos. 1 and 4,and Mr.Ishwari Singh for respondent nos. 2 and 3. 2. This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred by the petitioners of CWJC No.8156 of 1995, and raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 1.7.2010 whereby the writ petition has been disposed of with the observation that the outcome of S.L.P. No.3570 of 2008 and S.L.P. No.3985 of 2008, will decide the fate of the petitioners. 3. The issue is not free from difficulties. On the one hand, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned single Judge had passed order dated 10.12.2008, whereby the following order was passed, governing CWJC No. 8156 of 1995, as well as CWJC No. 3275 of 1999: “List these cases after disposal of S.L.P.No.3570 of 2008 and S.L.P.No.3985 of 2008.” It appears that the office inadvertently placed both the 2 writ petitions before the learned single Judge on 1.7.2010, without verifying whether or not the two SLPs have been disposed of, who has been pleased to dispose of both the writ petitions by passing the following order on 1.7.2010. “No fresh adjudication is required to be made in the present writ applications. The outcome of the SLP No.3570 of 208 and 3985 of 2008 will decide the fate of the petitioners. Both the writ applications are dismissed.” 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the aforesaid order dated 1.7.2010, finally disposed of the present CWJC No.8156 of 1995, as well as CWJC No.3275 of 1999. The petitioner of the former have only preferred the present appeal. In other words, in his submission, the order dated 1.7.2010, with respect of CWJC No.3275 of 1999, has attained finality. 5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us that the earlier order dated 10.12.2008, was not placed before the learned Single Judge at the time the order dated 1.7.2000 was passed. There is no application on record, much less an order sans an application for modification or recall of the order dated 10.12.2008. However, taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the matter, we would 3 prefer to set aside the order dated 1.7.2010 with some amount of hesitation, and remit the writ petition to the learned single Judge. 6. This appeal is allowed. CWJC No.8156 of 1995 may be placed before a learned single Judge of this Court. psc (S.K.Katriar,J.) (Vikash Jain, J.)