Patna High Court
Imtiyaj BhartiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The intra‑court appeal is dismissed as the appellant relinquished his right to challenge the termination order by not pressing the writ petition.
Summary
The appellant, Imtiyaj Bharti, was appointed under a scheme but his services were terminated by Memo No.1958 dated 07.08.2019. He challenged the termination through a departmental appeal, which was dismissed, and then filed a writ petition (C.W.J.C. No.14328 of 2021) seeking relief. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appellant had not pressed the substantive challenge and granted him liberty to pursue alternative remedies. The appellant subsequently filed an intra‑court appeal contesting that dismissal, alleging violation of natural justice in the termination process. The High Court held that because the appellant voluntarily withdrew and did not press the writ petition, he relinquished his right to challenge the order and therefore the intra‑court appeal could not be entertained. The appeal was dismissed, with the court reiterating that the appellant remains free to seek other remedies as previously permitted.
Issues considered
- Can a party who voluntarily withdraws or does not press a writ petition later challenge the order passed on his own request through an intra‑court appeal?
- Does the alleged violation of natural justice in the termination order become irrelevant when the writ petition was not pressed?
Subjects
- natural justice
- intra‑court appeal
- writ petition
- withdrawal of proceedings
- administrative termination
- alternative remedy
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.159 of 2024
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14328 of 2021
======================================================
Imtiyaj Bharti Son of Md. Salim Resident of Village and P.O.- Bazidpur,
Police Station- Vidyapati Nagar, District- Samastipur.
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Rural Development
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Collector, Samastipur.
3. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Samastipur.
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dalsinghsarai, District- Samastipur.
5. The Block Development Officer, Block- Dalsinghsarai, District- Samastipur.
6. The Block Development Officer, Mohiuddin Nagar, District- Samastipur.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Lakshmindra Kumar Yadav, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Additional Advocate General-4
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
2 06-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present intra court appeal has been preferred
against the order dated 18.01.2024 passed by the learned Single
Judge in C.W.J.C. No.14328 of 2021, whereby the writ petition
preferred by the appellant came to be dismissed.
3. The brief facts of the present case are that the
appellant was duly appointed under a Scheme. Subsequently,
Memo No.1958 dated 07.08.2019 came to be passed, whereby
Patna High Court L.P.A No.159 of 2024(2) dt.06-07-2026
2/5
the services of the appellant were terminated. Aggrieved by the
order of termination, the appellant preferred a departmental
appeal before the Collector. The said appeal was dismissed by
order dated 07.04.2021. Challenging the aforesaid orders of
termination and dismissal of the departmental appeal, the
appellant invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court by
filing C.W.J.C. No. 14328 of 2021.
4. The learned Single Judge while deciding the matter,
observed as follows:
“2. At the outset, the learned counsel for
the petitioner seeks not to press the
present writ petition, however, seeks
liberty on behalf of the petitioner to avail
such other alternative remedies as are
otherwise available under the law,
including that of filing a civil suit before
the learned Civil Court having competent
jurisdiction, for redressal of his aforesaid
grievances. Liberty so sought is granted.
3. The writ petition stands dismissed as
not pressed.”
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
impugned order of termination is vitiated by violation of the
principles of natural justice. It was contended that the appellant
was not afforded a fair and effective opportunity of hearing
Patna High Court L.P.A No.159 of 2024(2) dt.06-07-2026
3/5
before his services were terminated. It was further submitted
that the allegations had already been found to be baseless in two
earlier inquiry reports, yet the respondents proceeded to
terminate the appellant’s services without due process.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents
submits that no interference with the impugned judgment of the
learned Single Judge is called for. It is contended that, before
the learned Single Judge, the appellant did not press the
challenge to the order of termination. Having abandoned the
substantive challenge before the learned Writ Court, the
appellant cannot now be permitted to assail the impugned
judgment in the present appeal.
7. It is a settled principle of law that a litigant who
voluntarily withdraws or does not press a proceeding cannot
subsequently challenge the very order passed on the basis of his
own request. The appellant, having consciously elected not to
invite an adjudication on the merits of the writ petition and
having accepted the liberty granted by the learned Single Judge,
cannot now seek to assail the said order in an intra-court appeal.
8. In view of the nature of the impugned order, since
the appellant did not press the writ petition before the learned
Writ Court, he consciously relinquished his right to challenge
Patna High Court L.P.A No.159 of 2024(2) dt.06-07-2026
4/5
the order of termination adjudicated in the writ proceedings.
Significantly, while preferring the present intra-court appeal, the
appellant has not offered any plausible explanation as to why
the writ petition was not pressed before the learned Single
Judge. It is also not a case where the appellant had approached
an incorrect forum and withdrew the writ petition to pursue an
appropriate statutory or alternative remedy. Rather, the present
appeal seeks to question an order passed entirely on the
appellant's own request.
9. In such circumstances, the appellant cannot be
permitted to challenge the very order which embodies the relief
sought by him before the learned Single Judge. Entertaining the
present appeal would amount to permitting the appellant to
approbate and reprobate, a course impermissible in law.
10. In view of the foregoing discussion and the
findings recorded on the issues hereinabove, this Court is of the
view that the impugned judgment and order passed by the
learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference in
exercise of the intra court appellate jurisdiction.
11. Accordingly, the present intra court appeal stands
dismissed.
12. It is, however, clarified that the appellant shall be
Patna High Court L.P.A No.159 of 2024(2) dt.06-07-2026
5/5
at liberty to avail such other remedy as may be available to him
in law for redressal of his grievances, in terms of the liberty
granted by the learned Single Judge. If so advised, the appellant
may submit a representation before the competent authority,
which shall be considered in accordance with law.
13. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J.)
(Ranjan Kumar Jha, J.)
sujit/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.