2025:JHHC:36525-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No.399 of 2022 Sunil Kumar Paswan, aged about -49 years, Son of Sri Parmeshwar Paswan, Mayer, Giridih Municipal Corporation, R/o At Shitalpur Sirsiya, P.O. Sirsiya, P.S. Giridih Muffasil, District- Giridih, Jharkhand …….Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, at Project Building, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand) 2. Secretary, Department of Women, Child Development and Social Security, Government of Jharkhand, at Project Building Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi (Jharkhand) 3. Secretary, Department of Schedule Tribe, Schedule Caste, Minority and Backward Class Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, at Project Building Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi (Jharkhand) 4. Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administration and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand, at Project Building Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Durwa, District - Ranchi (Jharkhand) 5. The Tribal Welfare Commissioner cum Member Secretary, Scrutiny Committee, Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand, At + P.O. + P.S. Dhurwa, District – Ranchi 6. Sri Premchand Murmu, son of not known to Appellant, Member, Caste Scrutiny Committee, Government of Jharkhand, At-P.O.+P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi 7. The Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Urban Development and Housing Department, at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand) 8. The Additional Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Urban Development and Hosing Department, at Project Building Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi (Jharkhand) 9. The Municipal Commissioner, Giridih, Office situated At+P.O.+P.S. District- Giridih, Jharkhand 2025:JHHC:36525-DB 2 10. The Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, Office situated At + P.O. + P.S. District- Giridih, Jharkhand 11. The Circle Officer, Giridih, Office situated At P.O.+ P.S. District- Jharkhand. ……..Respondents --------- CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Binod Singh, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG-II For the Res. No.9 : Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, Adv. --------- 21/05.12.2025 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 2025:JHHC:36525-DB 3 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 2025:JHHC:36525-DB 4 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. 5. Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG-II opposes the contention of the appellant and summits that Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) is generally not maintainable after the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) because the dismissal implies the Supreme Court has chosen not to interfere with the High Court's judgment. However, this is contingent on the nature of the original High Court order, and the general principle is that a second appeal is considered an abuse of the legal process. He further submits that when the Supreme Court dismisses a SLP after hearing the parties, it means the High Court's decision is left undisturbed. Therefore, a subsequent LPA to the High Court is seen as an attempt to re-litigate an issue already considered and rejected by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record, it appears that a writ application was filed by the appellant for quashing the order dated 31.05.2019 issued by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. 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; 2025:JHHC:36525-DB 5 whereby the respondent no.9 has cancelled the caste certificate No.JHCC/2018/21640 dated 17.03.2018. Prayer was also made for quashing letter dated 14.08.2020; whereby the Municipal Corporation was directed to send the recommendation that the petitioner 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 Elected Representative (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2020. Quashing of letter dated 17.08.2020 has also been 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 has also been sought to be quashed issued to the petitioner under Rule 3:16 of the Jharkhand Municipality Elected Representative (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2020. 7. The said writ application was dismissed on merit. Thereafter, the appellant instead of preferring the intra court appeal; he preferred the Special Leave to Petition being SLP (C) No.(s)11974-11975 of 2021 which was dismissed. 8. The issue before us is whether the present LPA is maintainable in the light of the fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had dismissed the SLP of the appellant. For this, it is necessary to peruse the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. For brevity, the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court is extracted hereunder. “Upon hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER 2025:JHHC:36525-DB 6 We are not inclined to entertain these petitions. The special leave petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. 9. From bare perusal of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is evident that the Hon’ble Apex Court declined to entertain the petitions and dismissed the special leave petition after hearing the Counsel. Thus, it clearly implies that the said appeal is not dismissed in limine; rather the Hon’ble Apex Court has dismissed the appeal on merit after hearing the counsel for the appellant. 10. The matter would have been different, if the appeal would have dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to the appellant to prefer L.P.A. before this Court. But, as stated hereinabove, the Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition after hearing the Counsel for the appellant. Thus, it is evident that the order passed by the Writ Court was examined and the Apex Court did not find any merit in the case and thereafter dismissed the appeal. We are of the considered view that an order may be concise or vast; but to examine as to whether it has been dismissed in limine or is dismissed on merit, one has to see as to whether the order has been passed after hearing; which is present in this case. 11. Thus, it is evident that against the main judgment passed by the Writ Court, SLP has been dismissed earlier and same having become final 2025:JHHC:36525-DB 7 between the parties, as such, the appellant cannot be allowed to take a chance again as a second inning/ second round of litigation; as such, the instant Letters Patent Appeal is an abuse of process of Court as it amounts to re-litigation and to entertain the instant Letters Patent Appeal would amount to challenging one of the foundation pillars of Rule of Law namely finality in litigation. In other words, when the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismised SLP after hearing the Ld. Counsel for the appellant, it means the High Court's decision is left undisturbed. Therefore, a subsequent LPA to the High Court is an attempt to re-litigate an issue already considered and rejected by the Hon’ble Apex Court 12. Furthermore, an order can be brief or extensive; but the fact remains, when the Court has dismissed a case upon hearing of the party, it is deemed that the Court has applied its mind after hearing, and this sort of order cannot be termed as dismissed in limine. 13. In this background, the case of the appellant is not sustainable, as the LPA itself is not maintainable. Accordingly, the instant LPA stands dismissed. Pending I.As, if any also closed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) December 05, 2025 Fahim/- Uploaded on 05.12.2025