1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Admittedly the order under challenge, as passed by the learned Single Judge, was the subject matter of another Letters Patent Appeal (for short "L.P.A.") before this Court. That L.P.A. was dismissed vide order dated 3.2.2010. The challenge to the order passed in L.P.A. was preferred by the appellant-Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation Limited, Patna (respondent No. 4 herein), a Government of Bihar Undertaking Unit, through which, the subsidy was to be disbursed.
3. The order of L.P.A. Court was challenged in the Hon''ble Supreme Court and the Hon''ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP and upheld the order of the L.P.A. Court and that of the learned Single Judge.
4. Once the order has been upheld, it is not open for the State of Bihar to challenge the same in this L.P.A. in the guise of cause of action being against the State of Bihar because the earlier appellant was an instrumentality of the State of Bihar who was responsible for disbursement of the subsidy.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellants drew our attention to Section 41 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 (for short "the Act").
6. We are afraid that this section can be invoked which says that any liability has to be adjudicated under Sub-section (4) of Section 41 of the Act and the remedy of the appellants lies u/s 41 and recourse taken u/s 55 of the Act is also not available as was sought to be taken by the appellants.
7. Once the order of the learned Single Judge has been upheld and that also was affirmed by the coordinate Bench of this Court and by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, no interference is required by us in this appeal.
8. In this view of the matter, the appeal being meritless accordingly, dismissed.
