Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
r2J Refilling of the writ appeal to challenge the ame order.-Ap- pellants sought to challenge the same order dated 15- 11-2006 dismissing the writ petition o.4641/06 nnd which was assailed in previous wriL appeal No. 718/06 and got it dis mis cd as withdrawn and eking reference to a larger bench. Hold, the present writ appeal is not maintainable and filing of pre ant writ appeal is an abuse of the proce s of the Court and we decline to entertain the vmt ppenl. On perusal of the pleadings and other orders, by refilling of the writ appeal, High Court 1s inclined to think a deliberate, adroit and lngcnfous attempt has been made to crent.c a different kind of impre ·sion. The appellants have cho.!"en th ·ir own facts and put forth them before the Court. Once U1ey bnd filed the writ nppeal, they could have got it adjudicated. They chose not to do so 1rnd fi?ed till application m writing and withdrew the same by stating that after lhe deposit of thl' amount due, the appeal hod been rend('red infructuou . High Court wouJd have been under obligation to answer the refer •nee if the Court had been convinced that the wnt appeal was maintainable and further that the reference at the instance of the appellants deserved l-0 be answered but as the factual matrix would expo it, the writ llppeaJ wa di m1 sed as withdrawn. While di m1ssrng previous writ appeal as withdrwn High Court granted liberty lo approach other forum or seek remedy as permissible tn law. The liberty wa not taken to file writ appeal. To approach other forum would not mean to file another writ appeaJ HIGH COURT (APP"EAL TO DB.) ADHINIYAM,2005 (HCJ392 <UC)395 HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DB.) ADliJNJ"YAM, 2DD5 phrase 'sufficient. cause' as used Ul the moin provision. Th appended explanation is only to provide an addiaonal upport to the dominant object of the Act in erder to make it meaningful and purposeful. An explanation C$lOOOl, however, take away a statutory right with which any person under statue has been clothed nor can set at naught working of an Act by causing hindrance by its interpretation. Held, that. the explanation, which has been attached has to be understood to provide the additional support to the dominant object of the Act for giving a meaningful purpose and also to avoid the creation of any obstacle to the statutory right of an appellant given under the ststute. Dr. Han. Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaj·a. Sagar fM.P.) v. Rajeshuiar Yadau, 2008(4} MPLJ