IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WritAppealNo. Siii, /2011(D.B.). Appellant : Petitioner ^\ ^..-•T ^^y . .•!r'"^>~y'" .•-" ,L<< '' ..••'' ..-^ //" "•r^ Geeta Prasad Banjare S/o Shri A.N. Banjare, Aged about 43 Years, Occupation Service, R/o Majgaonpara, Tilak Ward Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS Respondents ^"' 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through : The Secretary Home Department Ministry D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur Distt Raipur (C.G.) -2. State of Chhattisgarh Through Comraissioner Chhattisgarh State Transport Departanent Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. State of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secretary D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) ,4. State of Chhattisgarh Through Superintendent of Police Durg District Durg(C.G-) WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2(1) OF CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT APPEAL TO DIVISIpN_BENCH ACT 2006 AwM HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANTS PETmONERS RESPONDENTS WRTT APPEAL No. 546 of201 1 Geeta Prasad Baniare. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Otfaers. WRTT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2d) OF THE CHHATnSGARH HjGH COURT APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH ACT 2006 Coram : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agruhotri & Hon'ble Shri Radhe Shyam Sharma, JJ. Present: Sfari D.R.Sharma, Senior Advocate with Shri B.D.Badgaivan, Advocate for the appellant Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy Govemment Advocate forthe State/ respondents. ORDER (Passed on 12th day ofDecember, 2011) 1. The appellant has preferred the instant writ appeal against the order dated 30.09.2011 (Annexure A/3), passed by the leamed Single Judge in W.P (S) No. 5970/2011. Earlier, the appeliant had preferred a writ appeal being W.A. No. 495/2011 against the. same order i.e. 30.09.2011, which was wifhdrawn by the appellant, vide order dated 02.11.2011 (Annexure A/l). 2. It is well settled law fhat a second appeal aeainst the same order. in the instant case, 30.09.2011, passed by fhe leamed Single Judee, is not maintamable when the first writ appeal was withdrawn without seeking liberty to file a fresh appeal. (See : Avinask Nagra v. Navodaya Vidyalcrya Samits & Otkers^). In view ofthe above, the appeal is dismissed as not mamtainable. 3. Sd/- SATISH K. AGNIHOTM Judge Sd/- Radhe Shyam Sharma Judge 1 (1997) 2 SCC 534 1