- (1.) Heard Mr. Ritvik Upadhyaya, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. J.K. Sinha, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 4 as well as learned Standing counsel.
(2.) Mr.J.K. Sinha, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 4 raised objection against the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the Petitioner had already filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition bearing 21845 of 2008 before this Court at Allahabad with the following reliefs: I) A suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to decide forthwith the applications of the Petitioner dated 20.11.2006 and 20.3.2008 (Annexures 2 and 13 respectively to the writ petition) for withdrawal of State Grant-in-Aid to the Aditya Birla Intermediate College, Renukoot, Sonebhadra. II) A suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to delete the name of the Aditya Birla Intermediate College, Renukoot, Sonebhadra, from the State Governments' Grant-in-Aid list of institutions. III) Any other suitable writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IV) Award cost of this petition to the Petitioner.
(3.) He further submits that this Court disposed of the aforesaid Civil Misc Writ Petition finally on 30.4.2008 with the direction to the Secretary, Department of Education, U.P. Lucknow to decide the Petitioner's representations dated 20.11.2006 and 11.03.2008. However, before waiting the decision on the representations, the Petitioner preferred present successive writ petition on 25th May,2009 -2-with the same relief. Thus he submitted that being successive writ petition the Petitioner's writ petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed with heavy cost. He further informed that pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition the State Government passed the order on 6.8.2009, which could have been challenged before this Court sitting at Allahabad itself where record of earlier writ petition is available instead of challenging the same by amending the present writ petition. Further he pleaded that opposite party No. 4 has been impleaded in the representative capacity of the employees of the institution; whereas; all the employees of the institution are necessary and affected parties. It is further stated that the opposite party No. 4 has been impleaded in the representative capacity without consent of other employees.;