Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek review of prior orders, subject to limitation.

The petitioner, Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, challenged the District Magistrate, Jamui’s order dated 26 August 2014 in Misc. Case No. 51 of 2013 and the consequential order dated 28 May 2015 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamui.

Those orders recorded that a pole had been erected and the petitioner company was using 2.8 decimals of land.

The petitioner contended that the District Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to pass such an order and that the relevant power lay with the District Judge.

Respondent No. 7 argued that the District Magistrate had acted in compliance with an earlier order of a Co-ordinate Bench in CWJC No. 3086 of 2003 dated 15 December 2010, which had been passed with the consent of the petitioner’s counsel.

The petitioner stated that such consent had been given under a “mistake” and sought permission to withdraw the present writ petition while pursuing review of the earlier orders.

Whether the District Magistrate was competent to pass the order concerning the petitioner’s alleged use of 2.8 decimals of land and erection of a pole.

Whether the petitioner could withdraw the writ petition with liberty to seek review of the earlier orders passed in CWJC No. 3086 of 2003 and the connected miscellaneous proceeding.

The Court applied the procedural principle that a writ petitioner may be permitted to withdraw a proceeding with liberty to pursue an appropriate legal remedy, subject to applicable limitation requirements.

It also recognised the binding procedural significance of the earlier order of the Co-ordinate Bench, which had directed the District Magistrate to pass an appropriate order and was stated to have been made with the petitioner’s counsel’s consent.

No independent determination was made on the substantive jurisdiction of the District Magistrate, and no statutory provision or precedent was expressly relied upon in deciding the writ petition.

The Court noted the competing positions: the petitioner challenged the District Magistrate’s jurisdiction, whereas Respondent No. 7 maintained that the impugned order was passed pursuant to the earlier directions of the Co-ordinate Bench and the petitioner’s consent.

Since the petitioner asserted that the consent had been given under a mistake and expressly sought to challenge the earlier orders by review, the Court granted the requested liberty rather than adjudicating the merits of the District Magistrate’s jurisdiction or the legality of the land-use determination.

The liberty was expressly made subject to limitation.

Any pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.

The Court therefore left the substantive issue of the District Magistrate’s jurisdiction open.