IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.198 of 2010 1. Sugrib Singh S/O Deo Nandan Singh R/O Vill-Anwal, P.O- Anwal, P.S- Kopa, Distt- Saran Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Commissioner, Saran, Chapra 3. The Collector, Saran, Chapra ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Kamal Nayan Chaubey, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ambuj Nayan Chaubey, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar Garg, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Harsh, Adv. Mr. Gopal Swarod Dubey, Adv. For the Respondents:- Mr. J.S.Arora, S.C.-6 Mr. Manoj Kr. Adv. Mr. Amit Bhushan, Adv. ---------------- 3. 29.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 8.9.2008 terminating his services as Moharir in absence of orders for extension of the duration. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset fairly submits that he has earlier filed C.W.J.C. No. 14638 of 2008 questioning the very same order. But the justification for the present writ application is the subsequent information obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act on 22.7.2009 which buttresses his claim that the impugned order was not in accordance with law. It is submitted that the petitioner undertakes to withdraw C.W.J.C. No. 14638 of 2008 unconditionally and that he shall not press the same. 2 Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer. He submits that the petitioner can well file an amendment application in C.W.J.C. No. 14638 of 2008 bringing the subsequent order on record. No encouragement should be given by the Court to a litigant for filing repeat writ applications for the same relief. It amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. No exception can be taken to the objections raised on behalf of the State generally speaking. The petitioner, rightly speaking, should not have filed the present writ application. He could easily have filed an amendment application in the same. But once he has filed a fresh writ application incurring extra expenses in the bona fide belief that the fresh information given to him under the Right to Information Act furnished him a fresh cause of action also, the Court finds it difficult to classify him as a person abusing the process of Court simplicitor. No useful purpose is going to be served by disposing the present writ application requiring him to pursue his remedies in the former writ application, more particularly when the respondents have also filed their counter affidavit in the present writ application. The Court accepts the undertaking of the petitioner. Let a copy of this order be placed on record 3 in C.W.J.C. No. 14638 of 2008. Assailing the order of termination and supporting the same, learned counsel for both sides made strenuous arguments to go into the merits of their respective claims. The Court does not consider the same necessary at this stage for reasons to be enumerated hereinafter. All questions of facts and law are therefore left open for the aggrieved to be agitated at the appropriate time. The Court in exercise of powers of judicial review under Article 226 is primarily concerned with the decision making process rather than the decision itself. If there is an infirmity in the decision making process, the appropriate order to pass is for remanding the matter for a fresh decision in accordance with law. On the record as they now emerge from the pleadings of the parties, the order of the Commissioner dated 6.1.1986 setting aside the earlier termination of the petitioner and the rejection by the Commissioner of the review application preferred by the Collector on 27.1.1993 was undoubtedly a matter relevant for consideration at the stage of passing of the impugned order. The Court is not concerned with whether the same decision would have followed or not or whether a different decision would have been arrived at. The 4 Court is only concerned with the question that a relevant issue has been left out of consideration as explicitly acknowledged in the information furnished to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act and not denied in Paragraph-28 of the counter affidavit. An administrative order which does not take into consideration relevant aspects suffers from the vice of arbitrariness. For that singular reason, the impugned order dated 8.9.2008 is not sustainable. It is accordingly set aside. It is reiterated that the Court has not gone into the merits of the impugned order. The occasion to test such fresh order may or may not arise depending on the fresh decision that the respondents may take after dealing with all relevant aspects. Let the respondents pass such fresh appropriate orders within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is expected that at the time of taking such final decision all relevant aspects shall be duly considered and decided so as to prevent further litigation. The writ application is allowed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)