IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 1220 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 22, 2011 Harikesh …Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. . JUSTICE M.M. . JUSTICE M.M. . JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR KUMAR KUMAR KUMAR HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE . JUSTICE . JUSTICE . JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH Present: Mrs. Anju Arora, Advocate, for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR M.M. KUMAR M.M. KUMAR M.M. KUMAR, J.J.J.J. 1. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 6.7.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the appellant was aggrieved by the order of his transfer and has earlier approached this Court in the year 2005 and a direction was issued by this Court to decide his legal notice within a period of two months. The learned Single Judge also held that if the legal notice had not been decided and the appellant is keeping quite then he cannot ask for another direction after more than five years. The view taken by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity because once a mandamus has been issued, another direction cannot be issued for implementation of the earlier mandamus. In any case, after five years, a fresh cause of action would arise because as per the LPA No. 1220 of 2011 (O&M) 2 learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant transfers are being made in the current season. Accordingly, we are not inclined to entertain the appeal and dismiss the same. (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH) July July July July 22 22 22 22, , , , 2011 2011 2011 2011 JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE PKapoor