Patna High Court
Amit Ranjan vs The State Of Bihar on 29 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10260 of 2021
======================================================
Amit Ranjan Son of Late Anant Kumar Srivastava, Resident of Baraheta
Laheriyasarai, P.S. - Bahadurpur, District - Darbhanga.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Darbhanga.
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Birol, Darbhanga.
4. The Block Development Officer, Kusheshwarsthan East, Darbhanga.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nivedita Nirvikar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Lalit Kishore (Ag)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 29-11-2021
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following
relief/reliefs:
"A. For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the
order contained in Memo No. 02-01/2017-66 dated 19-01-
2021 issued under the signature of Respondent No.-2 herein
the District Magistrate and Collector, Darbhanga whereby and
whereunder the petitioner has been dismissed from the
service.
B. For issuance of a writ/s, an order/s, a direction/s in the
nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to
give continuity of past services to the petitioner after
reinstating him and to give him seniority in service with all
consequential benefits.
C. For issuance of any other appropriate writ/writs,
order/orders, direction/directions for which the writ petitioner
would be found entitled under the facts and circumstances of
the case."
Patna High Court CWJC No.10260 of 2021 dt.29-11-2021
Unisputedly, petitioner has statutory remedy of appeal
before the appellate authority in terms of the relevant provision
provided under the regulations/rules.
Apex Court in the case of Jammu and Kashmir vs R.K.
Zalpuri and Others AIR 2016 Supreme Court 3006 in paragraph
20 held as under:
"Having stated thus, it is useful to refer to a passage
from City and Industrial Development Corporation v. Dosu
Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and Others {(2009) 1 SCC
168} wherein this Court while dwelling upon jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution, has expressed thus:-
The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under
Article 226 is duty-bound to consider whether:
(a) adjudication of writ petition involves any complex and
disputed questions of facts and whether they can be
satisfactorily resolved;
(b) the petition reveals all material facts;
(c) the petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for
the resolution of the dispute;
(d) person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained
delay and laches;
(e) ex facie barred by any laws of limitation;
(f) grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any
valid law; and host of other factors."
One of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the
aforesaid case is before entertaining writ petition one must
exhaust statutory remedy of appeal available to him or her.
Undisputedly, in the present case petitioner has not exhausted
remedy of appeal.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10260 of 2021 dt.29-11-2021
Accordingly, present petition stands dismissed as premature
reserving liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the
appellate authority. The appellate authority is hereby directed to
decide the petitioner's appeal at the earliest.
At this juncture, learned counsel for the submitted that there
would be delay in presenting the appeal. The appellate authority is
hereby directed to take note of the delay read with the reasons and
proceed to consider in accordance with law. He is also hereby
directed to take note of Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1960.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
GAURAV S./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 03.12.2021
Transmission Date NA
