Patna High Court
B. Anamika vs The State Of Bihar on 19 January, 2024
Author: P. B. Bajanthri
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVIEW No.107 of 2020
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4349 of 2020
======================================================
B. Anamika Wife of Shri Neelkamal, Resident of Muhalla - Matri Chaya
R.M.S. Colony, Road no. -1, Near New By-pass Kankarbagh, P.S. Lohia
Nagar, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, General Adnubustration Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Superintendent, Bihar Secretary Printing Press, Gulzarbag, Government
of Bihar, Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Santosh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Saroj Kumar Sharma, AC to AAG3
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND
MALVIYA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)
Date : 19-01-2024
The present Civil Review has been filed to recall the
order dated 27.07.2020 passed in CWJC No. 4349 of 2020.
2. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted
that Co-ordinate Bench has failed to examine whether subject
matter of CWJC - Conduct Rules, 1976 was notified in the
Gazette or not? The State respondents have produced
supplementary counter affidavit along with Letter No. 1390 dated
19.12.2023
to the extent that Bihar Government Servant Conduct
Patna High Court C. REV. No.107 of 2020 dt.19-01-2024
Rules, 1976 (for short 'Rules, 1976') was notified in the Gazette.
This being disputed by the learned counsel for the review
petitioner stating that alleged notifying in the Gazette not received
by the concerned department in this regard he has pointed
Annexure - 4 and 5. It is necessary to take note of Clause 1 in the
communication dated 07.05.2018, it reads as under:-
"(1) dkfeZd foHkkx dh vf/klwpuk la0 243
fnukad 10-02-1976 fcgkj xtV izdk"ku gsrq bl dk;kZy;
esa vizkIr gSA"
and Clause 4(1) of Annexure -5, it reads as under:-
"4 lwpuk miyC/k djkus ls lacaf/kr vkids
vuqjks/k ds izlax esa fuEufyf[kr lwpuk@vfHkys[k fuEu
dkj.kksa ls miyC/k ugha djk;s tk ldrs gSaA
(1) fcgkj ljdkjh lsod vkpkj
fu;ekoyh&1976 dh fcgkj ljdkj ds xtV vad esa
izdkf"kr vad dh izfr bl dk;kZy; esa miyC/k ugha gSA"
3. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted
that reading of the aforementioned material, it is evident that the
concerned department is not in receipt of material information
relating to Rules, 1976 to be notified in the Gazette.
4. Review petitioner has not understood the language
employed in the aforementioned material. What has been stated in
the aforementioned document is that materials are not available
and not in respect of receiving Rules, 1976 for the purpose of
notifying in the Gazette. Further, at this distance of time one
cannot expect retaining papers relates back to the year 1976.
Patna High Court C. REV. No.107 of 2020 dt.19-01-2024
5. No doubt, RTI Act has been introduced in the year
2005, after introduction of RTI Act, the concerned officials were
required to retain documents. In other words, earlier there may be
policy decision of the State Government to destroy the records
after five years. That may be behind the reasons in Annexure - 4
and 5 to the extent of non-availability of records.
6. Accordingly, review petitioner has not made out a
case so as to inference with the impugned order dated 27.02.2020
passed in CWJC No. 4349 of 2020. In the result the present Civil
Review No. 107 of 2020 stands dismissed.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
( Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)
abhishekkr/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 22.01.2024
Transmission Date NA
