Surendra Kumar Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9121 of 2015 ====================================================== Surendra Kumar Chaudhary, S/O Late Jhulan Chaudhary, resident of Mogalpura, P.S.Khajekallan, P.O.Jhauganj, Dist- Patna-800005. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar represented through the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Bihar, old Secretariat Building, Patna

2. Deputy Director employment, Exchange, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur (Bihar)

3. Directors employment and Training Bihar, Patna.

4. Accountant General Bihar, Patna.

5. Ram Pari Devi, so called 2nd wife of Late Jhulan Chaudhary, resdient of Mogalpura, Purani Chauki, P.O. Jhauganj, P.S. Khajekallan, Dist- Patna-08

6. Savitri Devi, So called 3rd W/O Jhulan Chaudhary, resident of Modi Nagar, P.O. Mirzan Hat, Dist- Bhagalpur.

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

For the Petitioner/s : None For the Respondent/s : Mr. AC to SC 6 Mr Binod Kumar Labh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL ORDER 13-07-2017 None on behalf of the petitioner. Counsel for the State and the Accountant General are present.

It has rightly been pointed out by the State not only by way of statement in the counter affidavit but also the relevant annexure, which is Annexure-A/3, that for identical relief an earlier writ application was filed and dismissed for the reason indicated in the order dated 02.12.2013. Even an LPA filed against the said order did not succeed. But suppressing all these facts, a fresh writ application has been filed seeking similar identical relief.

Patna High Court CWJC No.9121 of 2015 (3) dt.13-07-2017 2/2 In the above circumstances, the writ application is dismissed. The Court is inclined to initiate proceeding against the petitioner for suppression and false and misleading statement made in the writ that no such writ application ever has been filed before the High Court, especially in paragraph 2. However, keeping in mind the nature of the relief, the petitioner and the counsel both are cautioned to be careful in future or else any aberration of such kind emerging will surely beget serious reprimand, if not penal action, against such litigants. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) sk U