Jitendra Kumar vs The State Of Bihar
2022 Latest Caselaw 2002 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                     Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.672 of 2021
     ======================================================

Jitendra Kumar Son of Ram Narayan Kuwar resident of Village- Sinuar Gopal, P.O.- Kushothar, P.S.- Bahadurpur, District- Darbhanga.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Home Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. Director General of Police, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4. The Inspector General, Bihar Military Police, Northern Area, Bihar, Patna.

5. The Commandant, Bihar Military Police- VII, Katihar.

6. The Superintendent of Police, Katihar.

7. B.S.E. Board, Patna through its Secretary.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ratan Kumar Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anil Kumar, AC to SC-8 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 04-04-2022

Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

In the present petition, petitioner has prayed for

following reliefs:-

"That this writ petition is being filed for passing same order because this petitioner and Samaun Nabi terminated from constable by same letter and Samaun Nabi filed C.W.J.C. No. 16292 of 2006 and this Hon'ble High Court allowed the writ petition and Samaun Nabi was directed to reinstute, hence this writ petition may be disposed of by same order because both were terminated by same letter and direct the Respondents to reinstitute of the petitioner the facts and circumstances of this case."

The petitioner abandoned the service in the year

2005. In the result, respondent-department imposed the penalty of Patna High Court CWJC No.672 of 2021 dt.04-04-2022

termination on 16.12.2005 and launched a criminal proceedings

against the petitioner on 17.12.2005 in filing F.I.R. in the

jurisdiction Police Station on the score that the petitioner has

obtained order of appointment by producing fake/false documents.

Thereafter, petitioner did not agitated his right before the

competent authority or before this Court. Similarly situated person

is stated to have approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 16292 of

2006 and got an order in his favour. Thus, petitioner has presented

the present petition in the year 2021. Petitioner has not explained

delay and laches from the date of termination dated 16.12.2005.

Even assuming that order of termination dated 16.12.2005 was not

communicated to the petitioner still he could have approached this

Court or the competent authority stating that he has not been

communicated order of termination on the other hand he had

abandoned the service. Just because similarly situated person got

an order in his favour in the year 2006 the same shall not enure

benefit to the petitioner, having regard to the conduct of the

petitioner that he remained silent from the 2005 to 2021.

Apex Court in the case of Jammu and Kashmir V.

R.K. Zalpuri reported in AIR 2016 SC 3006 at para 20 held as

under:

"20. Having stated thus, it is useful to refer to a passage from City and Industrial Development Corporation V. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and Others, wherein this Court while dwelling upon Patna High Court CWJC No.672 of 2021 dt.04-04-2022

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, has expressed thus:-

"The Court while exercising its jurisdiction unde Article 226 if 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 in the aforesaid decision is

before entertaining a writ petition by the Court it is necessary to

examine delay and laches, if any. In the present case delay and

laches both are reflected. Therefore, the present petition stands

dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

(P. B. Bajanthri, J)

rakhi/-

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date          08.04.2022
Transmission Date