Sunil Kumar Paswan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 December, 2025

Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Deepak Roshan

                                     2025:JHHC:36525-DB


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                L.P.A. No.399 of 2022
Sunil Kumar Paswan, aged about -49 years, Son of Sri
Parmeshwar       Paswan,     Mayer,     Giridih   Municipal
Corporation, R/o At Shitalpur Sirsiya, P.O. Sirsiya, P.S.
Giridih Muffasil, District- Giridih, Jharkhand
                                             .......Appellant
                       Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary,
Government of Jharkhand, at Project Building, P.O. and
P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand)
2. Secretary, Department of Women, Child Development
and Social Security, Government of Jharkhand, at Project
Building Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi
(Jharkhand)
3. Secretary, Department of Schedule Tribe, Schedule
Caste,     Minority   and     Backward      Class  Welfare,
Government of Jharkhand, at Project Building Dhurwa,
P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi (Jharkhand)
4. Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administration
and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand, at Project
Building Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Durwa, District - Ranchi
(Jharkhand)
5. The Tribal Welfare Commissioner cum Member
Secretary, Scrutiny Committee, Welfare Department,
Government of Jharkhand, At + P.O. + P.S. Dhurwa,
District - Ranchi
6. Sri Premchand Murmu, son of not known to Appellant,
Member, Caste Scrutiny Committee, Government of
Jharkhand, At-P.O.+P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi
7. The Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Urban
Development and Housing Department, at Project
Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi
(Jharkhand)
8. The Additional Secretary, Government of Jharkhand,
Urban Development and Hosing Department, at Project
Building Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi
(Jharkhand)
9. The Municipal Commissioner, Giridih, Office situated
At+P.O.+P.S. District- Giridih, Jharkhand

                          1
                                                       2025:JHHC:36525-DB


        10. The Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, Office situated At
        + P.O. + P.S. District- Giridih, Jharkhand
        11. The Circle Officer, Giridih, Office situated At P.O.+
        P.S. District- Jharkhand.              ........Respondents
                                ---------
        CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay
                Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan
                                ---------

        For the Petitioner  : Mr. Binod Singh, Adv.
        For the Respondents : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG-II
        For the Res. No.9   : Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, Adv.
                                ---------


21/05.12.2025        In the instant appeal, the appellant has
        approached       this   Court       against    the     order    dated
        08.04.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3734 of 2019 passed by
        a coordinate bench of this Court; whereby the writ
        application filed by the writ petitioner-appellant has been
        dismissed.
        2.           The appellant had preferred the writ petition
        for quashing the order dated 31.05.2019 issued by the
        Caste Scrutiny Committee. A further prayer was made for
        quashing the order dated 17.08.2019 as well as the order
        dated 17.08.2020 and for quashing the memo no. 2290
        dated 17.08.2019; whereby the respondent no. 9 had
        cancelled the caste certificate No. JHCC/2018/21640
        dated 17.03.2018.
                     A further prayer was made for quashing the
        letter   dated     14.08.2020;       whereby         the   Municipal
        Corporation was directed to send the recommendation
        that the petitioner-appellant is ineligible to hold the post
        of Mayor and further it has been stated that the
        petitioner is ineligible under Rule 3.16 of Jharkhand
        Municipality     Representative       (Discipline      and     Appeal)
        Rules, 2020.
                     Quashing of letter dated 17.08.2020 was also

                                        2
                                                    2025:JHHC:36525-DB


prayed; whereby in reference to letter No. 2026 dated
14.08.2020, the Municipal Corporation has sent the
recommendation. The letter dated 28.08.2020 was also
sought to be quashed, which was issued to the appellant
under Rule 3.16 of the Jharkhand Municipality Elected
Representative (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2020.
3.             From record, it appears that this Court vide
its order dated 22.03.2023 has decided to consider the
issue of maintainability. As a matter of fact, the writ
petitioner after dismissal of the writ application directly
approached the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to
Appeal being S.L.P.(C) No(s). 11974-11975 of 2021 which
was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order
dated     13.12.2021.          For      brevity,      the      order       dated
22.03.2023 passed in this LPA is extracted herein below:
               "Hearing is taken up.
               The preliminary issue regarding maintainability of this Letters
        Patent Appeal shall be considered along with merits of the case.
               Matter be listed for further arguments on 12th April, 2023."

4.             Mr. Binod Singh, Ld. Counsel for the
appellant submits that the Special Leave Petition is
dismissed in limine and without any speaking order. He
further submits that an order refusing special leave to
appeal may be a non-speaking order or a speaking one.
In either case, it does not attract the doctrine of merger.
               He contended that an order refusing special
leave to appeal does not stand substituted in place of
the order under challenge. All that it means is that the
Court was not inclined to exercise its discretion so as to
allow the appeal being field. He further submits that
the dismissal of SLP is discretionary not a statutory
appeal or adjudication. Under the Supreme Court leave

                                   3
                                              2025:JHHC:36525-DB


jurisdiction under Article 136, dismissal at leave stage
only means, Supreme Court was not inclined to grant
leave and it does not mean Hon'ble Supreme Court has
adjudicated the case on merits.
             Relying upon the aforesaid submissions, Ld.
Counsel for the appellant submits that the instant
appeal may be heard on merit.
5.           Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG-II opposes the
contention of the appellant and summits that Letters
Patent Appeal (LPA) is generally not maintainable after
the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) because
the dismissal implies the Supreme Court has chosen
not to interfere with the High Court's judgment.
However, this is contingent on the nature of the original
High Court order, and the general principle is that a
second appeal is considered an abuse of the legal
process.
             He further submits that when the Supreme
Court dismisses a SLP after hearing the parties, it
means the High Court's decision is left undisturbed.
Therefore, a subsequent LPA to the High Court is seen
as an attempt to re-litigate an issue already considered
and rejected by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
6.           Having heard learned counsel for the parties
and after going through the documents available on
record, it appears that a writ application was filed by
the appellant for quashing the order dated 31.05.2019
issued by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. Further
prayer     was   made   for       quashing    the   order   dated
17.08.2019 as well as the order dated 17.08.2020 and
for quashing the memo no.2290 dated 17.08.2019;

                              4
                                        2025:JHHC:36525-DB


whereby the respondent no.9 has cancelled the caste
certificate No.JHCC/2018/21640 dated 17.03.2018.
             Prayer was also made for quashing letter
dated 14.08.2020; whereby the Municipal Corporation
was directed to send the recommendation that the
petitioner is ineligible to hold the post of Mayor and
further it has been stated that the petitioner is ineligible
under Rule 3.16 of Jharkhand Municipality Elected
Representative (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2020.
Quashing of letter dated 17.08.2020 has also been
prayed whereby in reference to letter No.2026 dated
14.08.2020 the Municipal Corporation has sent the
recommendation. The letter dated 28.08.2020 has also
been sought to be quashed issued to the petitioner
under Rule 3:16 of the Jharkhand Municipality Elected
Representative (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2020.
7.           The said writ application was dismissed on
merit. Thereafter, the appellant instead of preferring the
intra court appeal; he preferred the Special Leave to
Petition being SLP (C) No.(s)11974-11975 of 2021 which
was dismissed.
8.           The issue before us is whether the present
LPA is maintainable in the light of the fact that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court had dismissed the SLP of the
appellant. For this, it is necessary to peruse the order
passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. For brevity, the
order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court is extracted
hereunder.
             "Upon hearing the counsel the Court
             made the following
                               ORDER

2025:JHHC:36525-DB

We are not inclined to entertain these petitions.

            The       special    leave     petitions     are,
            accordingly, dismissed.
            Pending      application,     if   any,    stands
            disposed of.

9. From bare perusal of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is evident that the Hon'ble Apex Court declined to entertain the petitions and dismissed the special leave petition after hearing the Counsel. Thus, it clearly implies that the said appeal is not dismissed in limine; rather the Hon'ble Apex Court has dismissed the appeal on merit after hearing the counsel for the appellant.

10. The matter would have been different, if the appeal would have dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to the appellant to prefer L.P.A. before this Court. But, as stated hereinabove, the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition after hearing the Counsel for the appellant. Thus, it is evident that the order passed by the Writ Court was examined and the Apex Court did not find any merit in the case and thereafter dismissed the appeal.

We are of the considered view that an order may be concise or vast; but to examine as to whether it has been dismissed in limine or is dismissed on merit, one has to see as to whether the order has been passed after hearing; which is present in this case.

11. Thus, it is evident that against the main judgment passed by the Writ Court, SLP has been dismissed earlier and same having become final

2025:JHHC:36525-DB

between the parties, as such, the appellant cannot be allowed to take a chance again as a second inning/ second round of litigation; as such, the instant Letters Patent Appeal is an abuse of process of Court as it amounts to re-litigation and to entertain the instant Letters Patent Appeal would amount to challenging one of the foundation pillars of Rule of Law namely finality in litigation.

In other words, when the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismised SLP after hearing the Ld. Counsel for the appellant, it means the High Court's decision is left undisturbed. Therefore, a subsequent LPA to the High Court is an attempt to re-litigate an issue already considered and rejected by the Hon'ble Apex Court

12. Furthermore, an order can be brief or extensive; but the fact remains, when the Court has dismissed a case upon hearing of the party, it is deemed that the Court has applied its mind after hearing, and this sort of order cannot be termed as dismissed in limine.

13. In this background, the case of the appellant is not sustainable, as the LPA itself is not maintainable. Accordingly, the instant LPA stands dismissed. Pending I.As, if any also closed.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

(Deepak Roshan, J.) December 05, 2025

Fahim/-

Uploaded on 05.12.2025