2025:JHHC:37325 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.7308 of 2025 ------ Daya Kumar Baheliya, S/o Ram Prawaesh Pasi, R/o Ward No.6, Village Duldulwa, P.O. Pesaka, P.S. Meral, District Garhwa, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 2. The Director, Primary Education (Directorate of Education), School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Garhwa, P.O. & P.S. Garhwa, District Garhwa. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Garhwa, P.O. & P.S. Garhwa, District Garhwa. … … Respondents ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate Mr. Shashank Shekhar No.3, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Faisal Allam, AC to SC Mines-III ------ 02/ 11.12.2025 Heard the parties. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner with the same cause of action, had filed a writ petition being W.P. (S) No.5951 of 2024. It is also admitted that without any leave or liberty, the writ petition was simpliciter withdrawn. 3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarguja Transport Service Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P. Gwalior & Ors. reported in (1987) 1 SCC 5, at para-9 held as follows:- “9. The point for consideration is whether a petitioner after with-drawing a writ petition filed by him in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without the permission to institute a fresh petition can file a fresh writ petition in the High Court under that article. On this point the decision in Daryao case is of no assistance. But we 2025:JHHC:37325 2 are of the view that the principle underlying Rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code should be extended in the interests of administration of justice to cases of withdrawal of writ petition also, not on the ground of res judicata but on the ground of public policy as explained above. It would also discourage the litigant from indulging in bench-hunting tactics. In any event there is no justifiable reason in such a case to permit a petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution once again. While the withdrawal of a writ petition filed in a High Court without permission to file a fresh writ petition may not bar other remedies like a suit or a petition under Article 32 of the constitution of India since such withdrawal does not amount to res judicata, the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be deemed to have been abandoned by the petitioner in respect of the cause of action relied on in the writ petition when he withdraws it without such permission. In the instant case the High Court was right in holding that a fresh writ petition was not maintainable before it in respect of the same subject-matter since the earlier writ petition had been withdrawn without permission to file a fresh petition. We, however, make it clear that whatever we have stated in this order may not be considered as being applicable to a writ petition involving the personal liberty of an individual in which the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus or seeks to enforce the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution since such a case stands on a different footing altogether. We, however leave this question open.” 4. Since this case is squarely covered with the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Sarguja Transport Service (supra), I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 11th December, 2025 Prashant. Cp-2 Uploaded on 15.12.2025