1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5927/2008 (Ashok Kumar Murli Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) Date of order : 24.9.2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. Rajesh Kumar, for the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. In this case, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that against the suspension order, the respondent No.5, who was holding the post of Chairman of the Municipal Board, was placed under suspension and against the suspension order, he preferred a writ petition before this Court. The writ petition filed by respondent No.5 was registered as SB Civil Writ Petition No.4771/2008 in which while issuing notice on 18.7.2008, the following order was passed : “it is stated on behalf of the petitioner 2 that the impugned order dated 16.7.2008 (Annex.7) has not yet been served on him and he has obtained its photo copy only from the office of a evening newspaper published from Sriganganagar.” The contention of the petitioner is that by way of filing this writ of quo warranto, he is challenging the action of the respondent No.5 that he is sitting on Chairman although an order for maintaining status quo has been passed by this Court. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while mis-interpreting the order passed on 18.7.2008 in SB Civil Writ Petition No.4771/2008, the respondent No.5 was again allowed to sit on the post of Chairman, interpreting the order in his favour, which is illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court towards the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1970 (SC) 214 in which it is held that whether a government servant being on leave preparatory to retirement, an order suspending him is communicated to him by sending telegram to him home address before the date of his retirement, the order is effective from the date of communication and it is immaterial when he actually receives the order. It is very strange that while citing the 3 above judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner is asking for the interpretation of the order passed in another writ petition. Obviously, if he has any grievance with the order dated 18.7.2008 passed by this Court in SB Civil Writ Petition No.4771/2008 and he has right to say anything then he is required to file application in the said writ petition instead of filing another writ petition for interpretation of the order passed in another writ petition. He cannot be permitted to interpret the order passed in another writ petition. The purpose of filing this writ petition is questionable. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun