^F) HIGH COURT OF CHHATT1SGARH_AT BILASPUR WRIT PEmiONJW, 1952of 2004 M/s Jagdish Rice & Oil Mills and another Versus Central Bank of India and others Post for orders on 2^08/2007 Sd/- LC.Bhadoo Judge - HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITJON N0.1952 of 2004 PETITIONERS : 1. M/s Jagdish Rice & Oil Mills, A Proprietorship Firm, through its Proprietor Shri Girraj Mahawar, Jeyopore Road, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.). 2. Girraj Mahawar, S/o Late Khemchand Mahawar, aged about 32 years, Occupation Business, R/o Kumarpara, Jeyopore Road, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (Chhattisgarh). RESPONDENTS: Versys - 1. Central Bank of India, through its Regional Manager, Choubey Colony, Raipur, District Raipur 2. Central Bank of India, through its Branch Manager, Jagdalpur, Branch Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (Chhattisgarh). 3. Sushil Chand Pagariya, S/o Late Shri Mangilal Pagariya, aged about 44 years, R/o 3 Vivekanand Nagar Raipur (C.G.) (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Present: - Shri Manindra Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate With Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and Shri Akhilesh Datpati Advocates: Shri Prashant Mishra, Sr. Advocate With Shri Varunendra Mishra, Adv.: Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Advocate: For the petitioners. For respondents No.1 & 2. For respondent No.3. ORDER fPassed on a^'Auaust. 2007) L.C. BHADOO. J. Page2of2 1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for directing the respondent Bank to consider and accord the benefit ofthe RBI guidelines dated 29-1-2003. 2. Once the matter has already been considered after giving opportunity to both the parties. The matter has been finally adjudicated in Writ Petition No.2057/2003 wherein it has been held that the petitioners are not entitled for the benefit of RBI scheme dated 29-1-2003. This is a repeat writ petition on the same ground, therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable. 1 am fortified in my view by the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Rupa Ashok Hurra Versus Ashok Hurra and another & connected writ petitions reported in (2002) 4 Supreme Court Cases 388 in which the Apex Court held that:- "....on principle, a writ of certiorari cannot be issued to coordinate courts and a fortiori to superior courts. Thus, a High Court cannot issue a writ to another High Court, nor can one Bench of a High Court issue a writ to a different Bench ofthe same High Court." 3. Shri Manindra Shrivastava, tearned Senior Advocate, could not argue any pointas to howthis writ petition is maintainable. 4. In the circumstances, once the matter has already been adjudicated in Writ Petition No.2057 of 2003 vide order dated 15th September, 2003. No fresh writ petition on the same facts and same issue is maintainable. Therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. Ban/e Sd/- LG.Bhadoo Judge