RANCHI, India, Jan. 6 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Dec. 5:

1. 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 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 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.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=bzPoyUlszYLCUcCpirIpqBFchg1Cd9pcw6qYem%2BKUqfd0%2BlTTX8tTJCxwCzr%2BKwQ&caseno=LPA/314/2024&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010166892024&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.