Life Insurance Corporation Of ... vs Meetu Passi
2021 Latest Caselaw 1254 Jhar

                           1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  L.P.A. No.235 of 2020
                            ------

1. Life Insurance Corporation of India through its Chairman, having its office at 5th Floor, West Wing, Yogakshema, Jeevan Bhima Marg, P.O., P.S.-Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021

2. Zonal Manager, East Central Zone Office, LIC of India, having its office at Jeevandeep Exhibition Road, P.O., P.S. Exhibition Road, Dist: Patna

3. Senior Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Jamshedpur Divisional Office, Jeevan Prakash, Bistupur, P.O.P.S. Bistupur, Dist. East Singhbhum, State: Jharkhand All are represented through Ravi Gopalkrishnan, S/o. B. Gopal Krishna, aged about 58 years presently working as Administrative office (L&HPF), Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jamshedpur Division, Jeevan Prakash, Main Road, Bistupur, Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S. Bistupur, Dist: East Singhbhum, State: Jharkhand .... .... Appellants Versus

1. Meetu Passi, Aged about-52 years, D/o Late Surjit Kumar Passi, House No.8, Asha Shree Garden, Morabadi, P.O.-Morabadi, P.S.-Bariatu, Town & Dist: Ranchi, State: Jharkhand

2. Braj Kishore Narayan, S/o. Late Dr. Ramji Sahay, resident of: Pani Tanki, Tungri Toli, Harmu, P.O. & P.S. Argora, District: Ranchi, State:

   Jharkhand                                ....   .... Respondents
                           With
                 L.P.A. No.272 of 2020
                         ------

Braj Kishore Narayan, aged about 58 years, S/o Lt. Dr. Ramji Sahay, resident of Pani Tanki Road, Tungri Toli, PO & PS- Argora, District-

   Ranchi                                   ....   .... Appellant
                         Versus

1. Meetu Passi, Aged about-53 years, D/o Late Surjit Kumar Passi, House No.8, Asha Shree Garden, Morabadi, P.O.-Morabadi, PS-Bariatu, Dist. Ranchi, State: Jharkhand

2. Life Insurance Corporation of India through its Chairman, having its office at 5th Floor, West Wing, Yogakshema, Jeevan Bheema Marg, PO. P.S.-Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021

3. Zonal Manager, East Central Zone Office, LIC of India, Jeevandeep Exhibition Road, P.O.P.S. Exhibition Road, Dist Patna

4. Senior Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Jamdshedpur Divisional Officer Jeevanprakash, Bistupur P.O.P.S. Bistupur, Dist East Singhbhum .... .... Respondents

------

CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

------

 L.P.A.No.235/2020
 For the Appellants    : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate
 For the Resp. No.1    : Ms. Ritu Kumar, Advocate
 For the Resp. No.2    : Mr. Kumar Harsh, Advocate

 L.P.A.No.272/2020
 For the Appellant        : Mr. Kumar Harsh, Advocate
 For the Resp. No.1       : Ms. Ritu Kumar, Advocate

For the Resp. Nos.2 to 4 : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate

------

ORAL JUDGMENT 09/Dated: 15.03.2021

The matter has been heard through video conferencing with the

consent of learned counsel for the parties. There is no complaint about

any audio and visual quality.

Both the appeals have been directed to be heard together and are

being decided with this common order.

I.A.No.5337 of 2020 in L.P.A.No.235 2020

This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of

the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 08 days in preferring this

Letters Patent Appeal.

Heard.

In view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties and the

averments made in the interlocutory application, we are of the view that

the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause in preferring the appeal

within the period of limitation.

Accordingly, I.A.No.5337 of 2020 is allowed and delay of 08 days in

preferring the appeal is condoned.

L.P.A.No.235 of 2020

The instant intra-court appeal is under Clause-10 of Letters Patent

of Patna High Court directed against the order/judgment dated 12.06.2020

passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.5488 of

2019, whereby and whereunder, by allowing the writ petition the order

dated 30.07.2019, by which the writ petitioner has been terminated from

service as well as the appellate order dated 24.09.2019 have been set

aside by remitting the matter to the original authority, namely, Senior

Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Jamshedpur Divisional Office, East

Singhbhum for fresh consideration and for passing fresh order after

considering the caste certificate dated 07.08.2018 issued by the

competent authority of the State of Punjab, after giving an opportunity of

hearing to the writ petitioner within the period of 30 days' from the date of

receipt of representation along with the copy of the order.

2. The brief facts of the case required to be enumerated which read

hereunder as:-

The writ petitioner was appointed as Apprentice Development

Officer on 28.08.1989 at Life Insurance Corporation of India under

Reserved Category (Scheduled Caste). The caste certificate which was

submitted by the writ petitioner bearing number 3097/89 dated 04.04.1989

issued by the District Welfare Officer, Ranchi.

3. It is the case of the writ petitioner that one criminal case, being RC

20(S)/92(R) was instituted, wherein, charge-sheet was submitted in the

year 2009. A copy of the aforesaid charge-sheet was forwarded to the

District Welfare Officer, Ranchi by the Senior Divisional Manager, Life

Insurance Corporation of India at Jamshedpur, pursuant thereto, the

District Welfare Officer, Ranchi, issued memo no.1746(ii) dated

25.05.2010 cancelling the caste certificate issued to the writ petitioner as

back as on 04.04.1989.

It is the further case of the writ petitioner that the allegation

contained in the cancellation memo dated 25.05.2010 contains an

allegation to the effect that the writ petitioner being a General Category

candidate, dishonestly applied for the post of Apprentice Development

Officer in Life Insurance Corporation of India, a post exclusively advertised

for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidate claiming that the writ

petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste Category and obtained the

appointment in Life Insurance Corporation of India by claiming herself as a

Scheduled Caste candidate and by concealing the fact that actually she

belongs to "Khatri" caste comes under the General Category.

The Life Insurance Corporation of India has issued a show cause

notice on 24.06.2010 alleging therein that the writ petitioner being a

General Category candidate applied for the post of Apprentice

Development Officer reserved exclusively for Scheduled Caste and

Scheduled Tribe candidate, on the strength of certificate dated 04.04.1989

which subsequently was cancelled by the District Welfare Officer, Ranchi

vide memo dated 25.05.2010 asking the writ petitioner as to why the

penalty of dismissal from service proposed to be imposed be not imposed

upon her.

The writ petitioner, thereafter, had filed a writ petition being W.P.(C)

No.2760 of 2010 and vide order dated 10.08.2010 passed in the aforesaid

writ petition, it was indicated that the writ petitioner was confined to the

validity of aforesaid order dated 25.05.2010 passed by the District Welfare

Officer and the charge-sheet-cum-show cause dated 24.06.2010 issued

by the Senior Divisional Officer, Life Insurance Corporation of India.

By the same order, an interim order was passed that till further

order, operation of the aforesaid two impugned orders shall remain stayed

with liberty to the District Welfare Officer, Ranchi and respondent-Life

Insurance Corporation of India to proceed in accordance with law, if so

advised.

The writ petitioner has filed reply to the aforesaid charge-sheet-

cum-show cause notice.

It is the further case of the writ petitioner that one interlocutory

application being I.A.No.97 of 2013 was filed in the aforesaid writ petition

being W.P.(C) No.2760 of 2010 seeking vacation of the interim order dated

10.08.2010.

The aforesaid interlocutory application was disposed of considering

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Kumari Madhuri

Patil and Anr. Vrs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Ors.,

(1994) 6 SCC 241, in pursuant thereto, this Court has directed the writ

petitioner as well as the respondents to approach the Committee

constituted by the State of Jharkhand vide notification dated 08.07.2004

for taking appropriate decision whether the writ petitioner was entitled for

issuance of caste certificate on the basis of caste which she claims to

belong and whether she is covered under the presidential notification as

such to seek the status of the Scheduled Caste in the State of Jharkhand

or not and whether her caste certificate was fake.

The aforesaid interlocutory application was disposed of vide order

dated 24.07.2013 keeping the writ petition pending.

The Caste Scrutiny Committee conducted an enquiry and found that

the writ petitioner belongs to State of Punjab and is a permanent resident

of the said State. Accordingly, the Committee held that she is not entitled

for issuance of caste certificate from the State of Jharkhand.

It further held that in Jharkhand, the caste "Passi" comes under the

Scheduled Caste Category.

The Caste Scrutiny Committee also held that the District Welfare

Officer had informed the said authority that the caste certificate was

issued by their office in favour of the writ petitioner but the evidence on the

basis of which it was issued, was not available in their office and therefore,

the Committee did not pronounce upon the caste of the writ petitioner on

the ground that the caste certificate could have been issued only from the

State of Punjab.

The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the order of Caste Scrutiny

Committee has challenged the same by filing another writ petition being

W.P.(C) No.4922 of 2015 and finally the writ petition being W.P.(C)

No.2760 of 2010 was decided with W.P.(C) No.4922 of 2015 vide

judgment dated 25.07.2018.

The writ petitioner's case as per para-26 of the aforesaid judgment

is that this Court has clearly held that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has

not been pronounced that the petitioner does not belong to Passi

Community of the State of Punjab or she is not entitled for caste certificate

from the State of Punjab.

Further, it was held in the aforesaid paragraph that even if the caste

certificate of the father of the writ petitioner is under cloud, that does not

disentitle the State of Punjab from issuance of caste certificate to the writ

petitioner after proper enquiry.

Finally, the writ petition was dismissed with a liberty to the writ

petitioner to move before the appropriate authority in the State of Punjab

for issuance of caste certificate in favour of the writ petitioner after due

enquiry/verification in accordance with law.

The writ petitioner has approached the appropriate authority in the

State of Punjab. After due enquiry, caste certificate was issued by the

competent authority of the State of Punjab on 07.08.2018 holding the writ

petitioner a caste of "Passi" coming under the Scheduled Caste Category.

The writ petitioner had produced the aforesaid caste certificate

along with the representation dated 30.10.2018 before the authority of the

Life Insurance Corporation of India and upon receipt of the same, the said

caste certificate has also been verified by making an enquiry from the

Office of Tehsildar concerned of the State of Punjab regarding the

genuineness of the caste certificate issued in favour of the writ petitioner.

The concerned competent authority of the State of Punjab has

certified about genuineness of the caste certificate with a further certificate

that the writ petitioner belongs to Passi Community which comes under

the Scheduled Caste Category.

The further case of the writ petitioner is that the Life Insurance

Corporation of India without considering the reports submitted by the

Tehsildar, who has issued the caste certificate, of the State of Punjab, has

passed the final order in the departmental proceeding by dismissing the

writ petitioner.

The writ petitioner has filed an appeal before the appellate authority

but the appeal has also been dismissed vide order dated 24.09.2019.

Both the orders i.e., the order of dismissal dated 30.07.2019 as also

the appellate order dated 24.09.2019 have been questioned by filing the

writ petition being W.P.(S) No.5488 of 2019 and the learned Single Judge

of this Court after taking into consideration the fact that the order of

dismissal has been passed without considering the caste certificate issued

by the competent authority and its corroboration by the concerned

competent authority who had issued the certificate, hence quashed and

setting aside the order of dismissal as also the appellate authority order by

remitting it before the disciplinary authority to take fresh decision after

considering the caste certificate issued by the concerned competent

authority of the State of Punjab, which is the subject matter of the instant

intra-court appeal.

4. Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant-LIC has

submitted that the writ petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Caste

Category rather she is coming under the caste of "Khatri" which is under

the General Caste Category and for doing such type of conduct by making

submission of false caste certificate, a CBI case has been instituted in

which the charge-sheet has also been submitted, therefore, remanding

the matter before the concerned disciplinary authority is not proper as has

been done by the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition.

According to him, once the charge-sheet has been submitted by the

CBI with respect to the genuineness of the caste certificate, there is no

reason to remit the matter before the authority for consideration of the

caste certificate issued by the State of Punjab showing the writ petitioner

to be the member of the Scheduled Caste Community and therefore, the

impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eyes of Law.

5. Ms. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-writ

petitioner submits that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the

appellant-LIC that since a criminal case has been instituted in which the

charge-sheet has been submitted, the learned Single Judge ought not to

have remitted the matter before the disciplinary authority cannot be said

be a correct argument as because the departmental proceeding vis-à-vis

the criminal proceeding stand in different parameters.

According to her, if the case of the appellant-Corporation is that

merely because the CBI has instituted a case and submitted charge-sheet

against the writ petitioner showing herself to be a member of Scheduled

Caste, then question would be why the departmental proceeding is being

pursued and why the authorities are not recalling the charge-sheet itself

awaiting for the outcome of the criminal case.

She further submits that the learned Single Judge has not

committed any error in remitting the matter before the concerned

disciplinary authority to reach to the rightful conclusion about the

genuineness of the caste certificate issued by the State of Punjab, since

the very order of dismissal which has been passed against the writ

petitioner, there is no consideration of the caste certificate issued by the

State of Punjab.

She further submits that caste certificate has been issued on the

basis of the application made by the writ petitioner in pursuant to the order

dated 25.07.2018 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.2760 of 2010 with

W.P.(C) No.4922 of 2015 and therefore, it was incumbent upon the

disciplinary authority to look into the veracity of the said caste certificate

issued by the State of Punjab before reaching to the conclusion finding

sufficient reason to dismiss the writ petitioner and taking into consideration

the aforesaid aspect of the matter if the learned Single Judge has remitted

the matter before the competent disciplinary authority to take decision

after taking into consideration the aforesaid caste certificate issued by the

State of Punjab, the same cannot be said to suffer from error.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned

Single Judge in the impugned order.

7. Admittedly, the issue pertains to the genuineness of the caste

certificate of the writ petitioner basis upon which, the writ petitioner has

been appointed in service of Life Insurance Corporation of India.

The writ petitioner claims to be a member of Scheduled Caste

Category while the same is being disputed by the Life Insurance

Corporation on the pretext that the caste certificate issued way back in the

year 1989 by the District Welfare Officer, Ranchi has already been

cancelled.

While on the other hand, the writ petitioner claims that after

cancellation of the caste certificate issued by the competent authority of

the State of Jharkhand, Ranchi, the same has been questioned before this

Court and in terms of the liberty having been granted to make proper

application before the competent authority of the State of Punjab, caste

certificate has been issued by the competent authority of the State of

Punjab declaring the writ petitioner to be a member of the Scheduled

Caste.

The aforesaid caste certificate has been produced in the

departmental proceeding but according to the writ petitioner, the same has

not been considered by the disciplinary authority and she has been

dismissed.

The learned Single Judge has considered the fact about non-

consideration of the caste certificate issued by the competent authority of

the State of Punjab and therefore, quashed the order of dismissal as also

the appellate order by directing the disciplinary authority to take a fresh

decision by considering the caste certificate issued by the State of Punjab.

8. The argument advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the

appellant-Corporation that the order of remand by the learned Single

Judge (impugned) is not proper, as because, the CBI has reached to the

conclusion by submitting charge-sheet that the writ petitioner belongs to

the General Category.

9. It is the settled position of law that the departmental proceeding and

judicial proceeding is having entirely different parameters and why the

departmental proceeding is to be concluded on the basis of the

preponderance of the probability but the judicial proceeding is to go-by, if

the charges have been found to be proved beyond any reasonable doubt.

The departmental proceeding and judicial proceeding can go

simultaneously as has been held by the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of M. Paul Anthony Vrs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.

and Another, (1999) 3 SCC 679, the Hon'ble Apex court while dealing with

the situation of simultaneous continuation of departmental proceeding vis-à-

vis criminal proceeding, has arrived at following conclusions:-

(i) Departmental proceeding as well as proceeding in a criminal case

can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted

simultaneously though separately.

(ii) If the departmental proceeding and the criminal case are based on

identical and similar set of facts and the charges in the criminal case

against the delinquent employee involves complicated question of law and

fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceeding till

conclusion of the criminal case.

(iii) Whether the nature of the charge in a criminal case is grave and

whether complicated question of facts and law involved in that case will

depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of a case launched against

the delinquent employee on the basis of evidence and the material facts

against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge.

(iv) The factors mentioned at (i) and (iii) above cannot be considered

in isolation to stay the departmental proceeding but due regard has to be

given to the facts that the departmental proceeding cannot be unduly

delayed.

(v) If the criminal case does not proceed or disposal is unduly delay,

the departmental proceeding, even if there is stay on account of pendency

of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceed with so as to conclude

them at an early date, so that the employee if found not guilty his honour

may be protected and in case he is found guilty, the administration may get

rid of him at an earliest.

In the case of Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. Vrs. Girish V. and

Others, (2014) 3 SCC 636, their lordships of Hon'ble Apex Court, while

dealing with the situation of continuation of simultaneous proceeding both in

departmental as well as criminal proceeding, has been pleased to hold by

taking note of all the earlier judgments rendered by it, holding at paragraph

16 as follows:--

"16. Suffice it to say that while there is no legal bar to the holding of the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal trial simultaneously, stay of disciplinary proceedings may be an advisable course in cases where the criminal charge against the employee is grave and continuance of the disciplinary proceedings is likely to prejudice their defence before the criminal court. Gravity of the charge is, however, not by itself enough to determine the question unless the charge involves complicated question of law and fact. The court examining the question must also keep in mind that criminal trials get prolonged indefinitely especially where the number of accused arraigned for trial is large as is the case at hand and so are the number of witnesses cited by the prosecution. The court, therefore, has to draw a balance between the need for a fair trial to the accused on the one hand and the competing demand for an expeditious conclusion of the ongoing disciplinary proceedings on the other. An early conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings has itself been seen by this court to be in the interest of the employees."

10. So far as the argument advanced on behalf of the learned counsel

for the appellant that since the CBI has submitted the charge-sheet so the

learned Single Judge ought not to have remitted the matter before the

disciplinary authority is having no substance for the reason that if

according to the disciplinary authority, the charge-sheet has been

submitted by the CBI with respect to the caste of the writ petitioner, then

the question is why the appellant-Corporation is not withdrawing the

charge-sheet itself awaiting for the outcome of the criminal case instead of

raising such issue in the intra-court appeal.

Further, argument has been advanced that the writ petitioner

belongs to the General Category candidate is not coming under the

Scheduled Caste Category but this Court is of the view that as to whether

the writ petitioner is coming under the General Category or Reserved

Category, is to be looked into by the Enquiry Officer and not by this Court

sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as because the writ

Court cannot assume the jurisdiction of the Enquiry Officer.

11. It is the admitted fact that the caste certificate has been issued by

the competent authority of the State of Punjab in pursuant to the order

dated 25.07.2018 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.4922 of 2015 with

W.P.(C) No.2760 of 2010 but admittedly the said order passed by the Writ

Court has never been questioned by the respondent-Corporation.

If the caste certificate has been issued by the competent authority

of State of Punjab and when it has been produced by the writ petitioner

before the disciplinary authority, it was incumbent upon the disciplinary

authority to consider the said caste certificate by recording the finding to

that effect before passing the order of dismissal but having not done so,

the disciplinary authority has acted arbitrarily and contrary to the principle

of natural justice and on that ground, the order of dismissal will be said to

be perverse.

12. According to our considered view, if the learned Single Judge has

come to the conclusive finding about non-consideration of the aforesaid

caste certificate, as has been found to be admitted from the bare reading

of the order of dismissal and if the order of dismissal has been quashed

on the ground of non-consideration of fresh caste certificate issued by the

competent authority of the State of Punjab, the said finding and based

upon the same, the quashing of the order of dismissal as also the

appellate order by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to suffer from

error.

The learned Single Judge is correct in remitting the matter before

the disciplinary authority to take fresh decision after taking into

consideration the caste certificate issued by the competent authority of the

State of Punjab with a direction to take decision in accordance with Law.

13. Accordingly, we declined to interfere with such finding.

14. It is settled position of Law that if any enquiry has been conducted

against an employee proposing therein the imposition of capital

punishment of dismissal from service, the requirement of Law is that the

fairness and transparency is must to be followed.

15. Therefore, according to our considered view, the finding recorded by

the learned Single Judge suffers from no error.

However, at this juncture, learned counsel for the appellant-

Corporation submits that thirty days' time for conducting an enquiry is not

sufficient in order to verify the genuineness of the aforesaid caste

certificate issued by the competent authority of the State of Punjab.

16. We have found substance in such contention as the requirement

about corroboration of the said caste certificate is to be done from the

competent authority of the State of Punjab, therefore, thirty days' time is

required to be extended by providing reasonable time to the respondent

Corporation.

17. Accordingly, this Court deem it fit and proper to modify the

impugned order to the effect, whereby and whereunder, the respondent-

Corporation has been directed to conclude enquiry within the period of

thirty days' is being modified and extended to three months.

18. Accordingly, we are decline to interfere with the impugned order,

however, with a direction to conclude the enquiry as has been directed by

the learned Single Judge within the period of three months' from the date

of receipt of copy of the order.

19. In the result, the instant appeal is dismissed with the

modification/direction as indicated hereinabove.

20. In consequent to dismissal of this appeal, I.A.No.5338 of 2020 and

I.A.No.1279 of 2021 stand disposed of.

L.P.No.272 of 2020

The instant appeal has been filed by one Braj Kishore Narayan, the

appellant who has been impleaded as party respondent to the writ petition

being W.P.(S) No.5488 of 2019 on the ground that the appellant-Braj

Kishore Narayan is an interested party, as an F.I.R. being P.S. Case No.53

of 2006 dated 10.11.2006 SC/ST Police Station, Ranchi was lodged by the

writ petitioner alleging and inferring the allegation in regard to the

provisions of SC/ST Act. In the aforesaid case, Final Form was submitted

and thereafter, protest petition was filed by the writ petitioner and

therefore, the newly impleaded respondent in the writ petition being

W.P.(S) No.5488 of 2019 has been found to be necessary party by the

learned Single Judge and hence, the instant appeal in order to question

the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

2. This Court after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant in the

instant appeal has raised the question of locus in a departmental

proceeding by putting specific query that even accepting that a criminal

case has been instituted by the writ petitioner of W.P.(S) No.5488 of 2019

against him under the provision of SC/ST Act, can he get locus to come in

the way of questioning the order of dismissal of the writ petitioner.

Further, query has been made by the learned counsel for the

appellant that he has never filed a Writ of Quo Warranto rather he has

intervened and having the intervention application allowed, he has been

impleaded as respondent no.4 to the writ petition, does he derive locus to

come in the way of order of departmental proceeding.

3. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner is fair enough to submit that

the question of locus in the departmental proceeding of a foreign party is

not available, save and except, it is under a Writ of Quo Warranto. He

further admits that he has never filed a Writ of Quo Warranto.

4. This Court after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and

taking into consideration the fact that if a memorandum of charge has

been issued which has culminated into the order of dismissal confirmed by

the appellant authority which is in between the delinquent employee and

the employer, the third party has got not locus to come in between the

relationship of employer and employee in order to support the employer

about the decision of dismissal.

Even accepting that a criminal case has been instituted under the

SC/ST Act against the appellant in which the Final Form has been

submitted but a protest petition was filed by the writ petitioner of W.P.(S)

No.5488 of 2019, even then, no locus or no cause of action will arise for

this appellant to defend the Corporation in the decision of dismissal

against the writ petitioner.

5. It is settled position of Law that writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, the cause of action/locus is required to be seen.

Aforesaid is to be considered by the Court by taking into

consideration the interest of the party in the litigation in order to establish

the locus or the cause of action.

6. Furthermore, since we have already dismissed the intra-court

appeal being L.P.A.No.235 of 2020 for the reason stated hereinabove,

therefore, there is no reason to allow the instant appeal.

7. In view of the finding recorded by us holding the L.P.A.No.235 of

2020 is fit to be dismissed, accordingly, it has been dismissed, we find no

reason to take contrary view in the instant appeal.

8. In the result, the instant appeal is dismissed.

(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.)

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Rohit/-.A.F.R.