Finality of prior order bars reopening through writ petition despite liberty to pursue an alternative remedy.

A writ petition challenging a Magistrate's order was held not maintainable after the earlier order refusing leave to appeal had attained finality. Liberty to file a writ petition did not create a fresh jurisdiction or amount to a review of the concluded order; it only preserved an alternative remedy and did not permit reopening the same issue. Once the prior decision was left unchallenged and became final, the successor court could not sit in appeal over it. The challenge therefore failed at the threshold and the writ proceeding was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the Magistrate's order was maintainable after an earlier order declining leave to appeal had attained finality, and whether liberty to file a writ petition permitted reopening of the same issue.

Analysis: The earlier order refusing leave to appeal was not challenged further and had therefore attained finality. The grant of liberty to file a writ petition did not amount to a statutory source of jurisdiction or a review of the concluded order. Such liberty only enabled the petitioner to explore an alternative remedy; it did not authorize a fresh challenge to the same order merely because the earlier proceeding had ended unsuccessfully. Since the impugned issue had already been conclusively decided, the successor Court could not sit in appeal over that final order.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The challenge failed at the threshold because the prior order had become final and the subsequent writ proceeding could not be used to reopen it.

Ratio Decidendi: Liberty to pursue an alternative remedy does not confer jurisdiction to reopen or review an order that has already attained finality.

---