Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name |
CW/12522/2025 of Mahesh Kumar Mehar Son Of Shri Bajrang Lal Vs State of Rajasthan Connected with CW/12523/2025 of Lakhan Prajapat Son Of Shri Sohan Prajapat & Ors. Vs State |
| CNR | RJHC020712462025 |
| Decision Date | 19-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mahendar Kumar Goyal |
| Court | High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur |
| Bench | Single-Judge |
| Precedent Value | Persuasive authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms coordinate bench order dated 11-08-2014 |
| Type of Law | Writ jurisdiction under Article 226, Constitution of India |
| Questions of Law | Whether writ petitions raising identical issues can be disposed of in terms of a prior coordinate bench order when the controversy is no longer res integra |
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court held that when multiple petitions engage the same question of law already settled by a coordinate bench, they are not res integra and may be disposed in identical terms. Immediate relief in the form of relieving and joining orders must be issued by the executive within the court-stipulated time. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Arun Choudhary & Ors. vs State & Ors., SB CWP No. 5255/2013 (order dated 11-08-2014) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by Court | Application of stare decisis within the High Court; consistency in disposing similar writ petitions; avoidance of multiplicity of litigation |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioners challenged transfer/posting orders and sought relief. Counsel for both parties submitted the issue was no longer res integra in view of the 2014 coordinate bench ruling. |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts of the Rajasthan High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other benches of the Rajasthan High Court |
| Follows | Arun Choudhary & Ors. vs State & Ors., SB CWP No. 5255/2013 (order dated 11-08-2014) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- High Court may summarily dispose of petitions with identical legal issues by adhering to an earlier coordinate bench decision once the question is no longer res integra.
- Coordinate bench rulings, while technically persuasive, can effectively bind subsequent single-judge benches to ensure uniformity.
- Courts can direct the executive to grant immediate relief—here, issuing relieving/joining orders within 24 hours—where precedent mandates such compliance.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Both writ petitions raised common issues regarding transfer/posting relief under Article 226.
- Counsel agreed the controversy mirrored that resolved by a coordinate bench on 11-08-2014 in Arun Choudhary & Ors. vs State & Ors.
- Applying stare decisis, the court held the matter was no longer res integra and disposed the petitions in identical terms.
- Pending applications were disposed.
- Respondents were directed to issue relieving orders within 24 hours to facilitate immediate joining at new postings.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners
- The legal question had already been settled by a coordinate bench in 2014.
- Continuation of separate hearings would amount to multiplicity of litigation.
- They sought disposal in terms of the prior order and immediate relieving.
Respondents
- Notices were accepted by the Additional Advocate General.
- No opposition was raised; respondents agreed disposal in line with coordinate bench precedent.
Factual Background
Petitioners—two groups of police constables—filed writ petitions challenging or seeking relief in respect of transfer/posting orders. Counsel for both parties submitted that the precise issue was conclusively decided by a coordinate bench on 11-08-2014 in Arun Choudhary & Ors. vs State & Ors. The High Court issued notices, noted the issue was no longer res integra, and disposed of both petitions in identical terms, directing the issuance of relieving and joining orders within 24 hours.
Statutory Analysis
- Invoked the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
- No detailed interpretation of statutory provisions was required beyond recognising the court’s inherent power to follow its own precedent in disposing similar petitions.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed
Citations
- [2025:RJ-JP:32375]
- SB CWP No. 5255/2013 (order dated 11-08-2014)