- (1.) THE petitioner had earlier filed a Writ Petition No. 56701 of 2009 with the following prayers: (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari and to quash the impugned order dated 11.8.09 (Annexure 9) and its consequential order dated 14.9.09 (Annexure -10) passed by the respondent nos.1 and 4 respectively. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus and direct the respondents to give effect to the Executive Government Order dated 28/29.9.2000 and 12.2.2001. (iii) Award cost of this petition to the petitioner. (iv) Pass such order and further writ, order or direction in favour of the petitioner, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. An objection has been taken by Learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 that this is the second writ petition which has been filed with the same prayers. The prayers made in this writ petition are as under: (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the Government Order No. 989/29 -7 -09 -writ -109/99, dated 11.08.09 passed by District Supply Officer, Hamirpur and further to restore 56 K.L. Quota to the petitioner. (ii) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iii) award full cost of the present writ petition to the petitioners.
(2.) THE submission of Sri W.H. Khan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, is that in the earlier writ petition the Government Order which was considered by this Court was the order issued by the State Government which has been filed at page 83 in the earlier writ petition and not the one which is challenged in this writ petition though it is of the same date.
(3.) WHAT is noteworthy is that the challenge in that writ petition was the order dated 11.8.2009 filed as Annexure 9 in that writ petition. At page 88, which is part of Annexure 9 is the order dated 11.8.2009, is the same order which is under challenge in the present writ petition. As such it cannot be said that the order which is under challenge in this writ petition was not filed or challenged in the earlier writ petition. Sri Khan has however submitted that in the earlier writ petition the Court has noticed only the first order dated 11.8.2009 which was filed at page 83 of Annexure 9 and not the one at page 88 which is also of the same date and is under challenge in this writ petition. He thus, stated that this writ petition would be maintainable and should be decided on merits.;