IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1091 of 2010 1. CHEIF ELECTION OFFICER, BIHAR State Election Authority, Barrack No.11, Old Secretariat, Patna. . . . . Appellant/Respondent no.4. 2. The BIHAR State Election Authority, Barrack No.11, Old Secretariat, Patna, through its Secretary. . . . . Appellant / Respondent no.3. Versus 1. UMESH KUMAR SINGH, son of late Ram Pravesh Singh, Chairman, The Katihar District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Katihar, P.S.- Katihar, District- Katihar. 2. Kamal Kishore Singh, son of Sri Bishwanath Narain Singh, Chairman, the Begusarai District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Begusarai, P.S.- Begusarai, District- Begusarai. 3. Jagnarain Singh, son of late Mungeshwar Singh, Chairman, the Aurangabad District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Aurangabad, P.S.- Aurangabad, District- Aurangabad. 4. Nagendra Mishra, son of Sri Dharam Nath Mishra, Director, the Siwan District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Siwan, P.S.- Siwan, District- Siwan. 5. Satya Narain Singh, son of late Vishwanath Singh, Director, the Katihar District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Katihar, P.S.- Katihar, District- Katihar. 6. Raj Mangal Choudhary, son of late Thag Choudhary, Director, the Gopalganj District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Gopalganj, P.S.- Gopalganj, District- Gopalganj. 7. The State of Bihar, through the Secretary, Co-operative Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 8. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar, Patna. . . . . Respondents / Respondent no. 1 and 2. ----------- 10. 16.12.2010. Heard Mr Mukesh Kumar Thakur for the appellants, and Mr Y.V.Giri for the respondent nos. 1 to 6. None appears on behalf of respondent nos. 7 and 8. This appeal has been preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, and raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 19.4.2010, passed in C.W.J.C.No.5857 of 2010 and the analogous writ petitions, whereby the writ petitions preferred by respondent nos. 1 to 6 herein have been allowed, and the impugned notification no.520, dated 18.3.2010, issued by the appellant herein, has been quashed. 2 Leaned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 6 raises a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the appeal. He submits that the appellants have not filed appeals with respect to the analogous five writ petitions. It thus appears to us that the impugned judgment of the learned Single judge has disposed of six writ petitions raising common issues with regard to validity of the said notification dated 18.3.2010, whereby all the six writ petitions were allowed by a common judgment. The present appeal has been preferred only with respect to the order passed in C.W.J.C.No. 5857 of 2010, and the appellant has not challenged the judgment with respect to the remaining five writ petitions. It is obvious that the judgment of the learned Single judge has become final in so far as the remaining five writ petitions are concerned. Allowing the present appeal to continue with respect to C.W.J.C.No.5857 of 2010, being the sixth writ petition, may result in inconsistent judgments and orders. The preliminary objection is fit to be upheld. The appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to the cost. Shashi (S.K.Katriar,J). (S.P.Singh,J).