Uma Kumari @ Smt. Uma Thakur v. The Chief Secretary Government Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16536 of 2015 ===========================================================

1. Uma Kumari @ Smt. Uma Thakur W/o Late Vinod Kumar Thakur, Daughter of Sri Mahesh Prasad, Resident of village - Sakarwar Tola Darpan Dresses, Shyam Market Mokama, P.O. & P.S. - Mokama, District - Patna (Bihar). .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Chief Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.

2. The Director General of CISF - 13 - CGO Complex Lodi Road, New Delhi.

3. The Inspector General of CISF Eastern Sector, Patna.

4. The Senior Commandant CISF (Home Ministry) Unit 1st RBn Prib Badwah, P.S. - Dariya Mahal, District - Khargaon (M.P.).

.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raj Kumar Mishra For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.D SANJAY (ADDL. SOC. GEN.) =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 08-02-2016 Whatever the petitioner has done by moving the High Court and whatever be the explanation offered for suppressing the fact that an identical writ application previously moved has been dismissed is not condonable. What makes it worse is that there is a categorical statement made in the present writ application, especially in para 14 that she has not moved the High Court earlier on this matter.

The Court would not have discovered this fact of suppression but for the fact that the Additional Solicitor General, who represents the Union of India, produced an order dated 3.7.2015 passed in CWJC No.9388 of 2015, moved by the petitioner, and the writ application was dismissed by the learned single Judge for the reasons assigned therein.

The Court has been further informed that an appeal has also been filed

Patna High Court CWJC No.16536 of 2015 dt.08-02-2016 against the order of the learned single Judge, which is LPA No.1697 of 2015 and is pending.

This writ application in the above circumstances is required to be dismissed.

Petitioner is warned and cautioned not to indulge in this kind of adventurism. Whether it is her own initiative or on advice so rendered, the Court will not take such omissions as well as such conduct lightly on any other occasion and this fact is made known to one and all litigants and counsel representing such litigants.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) R.K.Pathak/- U