Devmati Kunwar v. The Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10217 of 2017 ========================================================== Devmati Kunwar Wife of Late Yadoo r/o village - Kajawan, P.O. - Amilwauna, P.S. - Jamhor, District - Aurangabad, Pin No. - 824124 (Bihar).

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Railway, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001.

2. The Chairman, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001.

3. The Member, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001.

4. The General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur - 844101.

5. The Divisional Railway Manager, Mughalsarai Division, East Central Railway, Mughalsarai.

6. The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Mughalsarai Division, East Central Railway, Mughalsarai.

7. The Senior Divisional Engineer (Co-ordination), East Central Railway, Mughalsarai.

8. The Chief Medical Director, East Central Railway, Hajipur - 844101.

9. Dr. Umesh Kumar, Dy. Chief Medical Director (Administration), East Central Railway, Hajipur - 844101.

10. The Medical Director, B.R.S. Hospital, Sealdah - 700029.

11. The Chief Medical Superintendent, Mughalsarai Division, East Central Railway, Mughalsarai.

12. The Chief Medical Officer, East Central Railway.

13. The Senior Divisional Medical Officer, East Central Railway. .... .... Respondents ========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Abhnay Raj, Advocate ==========================================================

Patna High Court CWJC No.10217 of 2017 dt.04-09-2017 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) Date: 04-09-2017 Even if it was a wrong legal advice to petitioner to a file fresh Original Application as the previous one was dismissed on the ground of limitation, we do not get any answer as to under what provision of law a second Original Application was filed or was maintainable.

Since, the Tribunal's order does not suffer from any infirmity, the Writ Application is also required to be dismissed as it would be a fruitless and needless exercise. The writ application is dismissed.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.) (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.) Rajeev/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 06.09.2017 Transmission Date NA