RAKESH SHARMA, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Santosh Kumar Awasthi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dipak Seth, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the opposite parties.
(2.) AT the outset, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this writ petition may be treated as public interest litigation petition as he has raised several legal and constitutional issues like judicial accountability and freedom of individual etc. in this case. Sri Dipak Seth, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents has strongly resisted the writ petition. At the outset, Sri Dipak Seth, has raised preliminary objection that the controversy raised in this writ petition has already been concluded by this Court in W.P. No. 6200 (S/S) of 2002 vide judgment and order passed on 14.5.2004. A special appeal filed under Chapter VIII, Rules 5, 9 and 10 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, against the said judgment and order dated 14.5.2004, had been dismissed by this Court on 15.10.2004. Being aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed a Review Petition No. 322 of 2004, which was also dismissed on 11.5.2004. Thus, the controversy raised in the petition has already been concluded by this Court by passing three judgments, i.e., on 14.5.2004, 15.10.2004 and 11.5.2005. Now, the same matter cannot be reopened and reagitated by filing this P.I.L. petition.
(3.) SRI Santosh Kumar Awasthi, learned Counsel for the petitioner has made detailed submissions. He has led the court to the contents of his petition, materials on record to highlight his submissions that he wants to assail the legality, validity and correctness of various actions initiated by the opposite parties which were in utter violation and disregard of the relevant constitutional provisions. As per learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Division Bench has acted in utter violation of Article 219 (Schedule III of the Constitution). The judgment and order suffers from jurisdictional defect and several errors have crept in the judgment. He has reiterated all the submissions, which were made before this Court while dealing with the petitioner's original writ petition, application for interim relief alongwith the special appeal and the review petition. The petitioner has laid stress that manifest error of law apparent on the face of record may be removed by this Court. He has prayed for constituting a larger Bench for disposal of this P.I.L. petition.;