Parmatma Tiwari vs The State Of Bihar
2023 Latest Caselaw 5284 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                            CIVIL REVIEW No.60 of 2022
                                            In
                     Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1956 of 2022
     ======================================================

Parmatma Tiwari, son of Ram Naresh Tiwari, resident of Village- Urda, Police Station- Chenari, District- Rohtas, Bihar- 821104

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Patna, Bihar- 800

2. The Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Patna, Bihar- 800 015

3. The Engineer-in- Chief, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Patna, Bihar- 800 015

4. The Superintendent Engineer, Rural Works Department, Work Division- 2, Rohtas, Sasaram

5. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Work Division- 2, Rohtas, Sasaram

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pratik Kumar Sinha, AC to GA-4 Mr. Samar Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)

Date : 11-10-2023

The present Civil Review Petition is filed for

reviewing the order dated 24.03.2022 passed in C.W.J.C. No.

1956 of 2022.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

on page-2, there is an error committed by this Court insofar as

filing of petition on 24th January, 2022, which should have been Patna High Court C. REV. No.60 of 2022 dt.11-10-2023

in the month of January, 2021. Whereas, in the pleading of Civil

Review Petition, it is stated that writ petition was filed in the

moth of September, 2021. In other words, the petitioner himself

is not aware what is the exact date of filing writ petition. Be that

as it may, there is no error apparent on the face of the record, so

as to invoke Order 47, Rule 1 of C.P.C.

3. It is submitted that cause of action accrued to the

petitioner in the year 2016 with reference to certain entries in

the Measurement Book. Even, if the cause of action accrued in

the year 2016. One cannot ignore the execution of the contract

in the year 2010 and its completion in the year 2011. Assuming

that cause of action accrued to the petitioner in the year 2016 he

should have approached this Court within a reasonable time of

three years from the date of cause of action accrued.

4. Further, it is to be noted that writ petition itself is

not maintainable as noticed by this Court on page-2 to the extent

that scope of interference in the case of public contract, for

payment of outstanding dues is restricted and limited. Both on

the maintainability of the writ petition as well as delay and

laches, the petitioner has not made out a case so as to entertain

the C.W.J.C. No. 1956 of 2022. That apart scope of review

petition is limited as held by the Apex Court in the case of Patna High Court C. REV. No.60 of 2022 dt.11-10-2023

S. Murali Sundaram vs. Jothibai Kannan and Ors. reported in

2023 SCC Online SC 185.

5. Accordingly, the present Civil Review petition

stands dismissed.

(P. B. Bajanthri, J)

( Arun Kumar Jha, J) manish/-P.S./-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                N.A.
Uploading Date          13.10.2023
Transmission Date       N.A