Patna High Court
The State Of Bihar And Anr vs Yogendra Prasad on 1 May, 2024
Author: P. B. Bajanthri
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri, Alok Kumar Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1688 of 2018
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18954 of 2016
======================================================
1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources
Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director cum Chairman, Bihar, Hindi Granth Academy, Prem Chand
Marg, P.S. Sultanganj, Rajendra Nagar, Patna.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Yogendra Prasad son of Late Adiya Prasad resident of Mohalla Bhagwan
Road, Mithapur, P.S.- Jakkanpur, District - Patna- 1.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 1689 of 2018
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8102 of 2017
======================================================
1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources
Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director cum Chairman, Bihar, Hindi Granth Academy, Prem Chand
Marg, P.S. Sultanganj, Rajendra Nagar, Patna.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Ramakant Choudhary, son of Late Mohan Choudhary Resident of Village
Fathepur, P.S. - Didarganj, District - Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 1690 of 2018
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19025 of 2016
======================================================
1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources
Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director cum Chairman, Bihar, Hindi Granth Academy, Prem Chand
Marg, P.S.- Sultanganj, Rajendra Nagar, Patna.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1688 of 2018 dt.01-05-2024
2/6
Ashok Kumar Sinha Son of Late Maheshwar Dayal Resident of House No.
35, Muhalla-Hanuman Nagar, New Punaichak, Patna- 23.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1688 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Abhanjalli Ac To Ga 12
Mr. Apurva Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Abhay Kumar Singh, Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1689 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Abhanjalli Ac To Ga 12
Mr. Apurva Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1690 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Abhanjalli Ac To Ga 12
Mr. Apurva Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)
Date : 01-05-2024
Ref: I.A. No. 9024 of 2018 in L.P.A. 1688 of 2018
Heard Limitation Petition (I.A. No. 9024 of 2018).
There is a delay of about 439 days in preferring L.P.A. No. 1688
of 2018. The reasons assigned are as under:-
"4. That it is respectfully that after the
receipt of the order dated 11.08.2017 passed in
C.W.J.C. No. 18954 of 2016 the administrative
department sought opinion from the Law
Department regarding filling of letter patent
appeal against the order dated 11.08.2017.
5. That therefore the Law Department
pursuant to the query of the Administrative
Department stated that it would be appropriate to
seek the opinion of the Learned Advocate General,
Bihar in this regard.
6. That thereafter the concerned file
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1688 of 2018 dt.01-05-2024
from the Law Department was received in the
office of the Advocate General, Bihar.
7. That thereafter the concerned file
was marked to the office of the Learned
Government Advocate No. 12 for the purpose of
drafting the letters patent appeal I.A. petition for
condoning limitation and challenging the order
dated 11.08.2017 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 18954 of
2016."
2. Sufficient cause has not been shown so as to
condoned enormous delay of 439 days. What has been stated is
the movement of the file insofar as filing L.P.A. Further, it is to
be noted that there are no dates and events as to the movement
of the file. Therefore, there is a dearth of reasons so as to
condone the delay of 439 days.
3. Taking note of recent decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda
Koley, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 551. Para 10 to 14 of
the same deals with rejection of belated litigation.
4. Accordingly, taking note of the cited decision,
the present I.A. No. 9024 of 2018 stands rejected, consequently,
L.P.A. No. 1688 of 2018 stands dismissed.
Ref: I.A. No. 9022 of 2018 in L.P.A. No. 1689 of 2018
Heard I.A. No. 9022 of 2018. There is a delay of
about 439 days in preferring L.P.A. No. 1689 of 2018. The
reasons assigned are as under:-
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1688 of 2018 dt.01-05-2024
"4. That it is respectfully that after the
receipt of the order dated 11.08.2017 passed in
C.W.J.C. No. 8102 of 2017 the administrative
department sought opinion from the Law
Department regarding filling of letter patent
appeal against the order dated 11.08.2017.
5. That therefore the Law Department
pursuant to the query of the Administrative
Department stated that it would be appropriate to
seek the opinion of the Learned Advocate General,
Bihar in this regard.
6. That thereafter the concerned file
from the Law Department was received in the
office of the Advocate General, Bihar.
7. That thereafter the concerned file
was marked to the office of the Learned
Government Advocate No. 12 for the purpose of
drafting the letters patent appeal I.A. petition for
condoning limitation and challenging the order
dated 11.08.2017 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8102 of
2017."
2. Sufficient cause has not been shown so as to
condoned enormous delay of 439 days. What has been stated is
the movement of the file insofar as filing L.P.A. Further, it is to
be noted that there are no dates and events as to the movement
of the file. Therefore, there is a dearth of reasons so as to
condone the delay of 439 days.
3. Taking note of recent decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda
Koley, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 551. Para 10 to 14 of
the same deals with rejection of belated litigation.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1688 of 2018 dt.01-05-2024
4. Accordingly, taking note of the cited decision,
the present I.A. No. 9022 of 2018 stands rejected, consequently,
L.P.A. No. 1689 of 2018 stands dismissed.
Ref: I.A. No. 9021 of 2018 in L.P.A. No. 1690 of 2018
Heard I.A. No. 9021 of 2018. There is a delay of
about 439 days in preferring L.P.A. No. 1690 of 2018. The
reasons assigned are as under:-
"4. That it is respectfully that after the
receipt of the order dated 11.08.2017 passed in
C.W.J.C. No. 19025 of 2016 the administrative
department sought opinion from the Law
Department regarding filling of letter patent
appeal against the order dated 11.08.2017.
5. That therefore the Law Department
pursuant to the query of the Administrative
Department stated that it would be appropriate to
seek the opinion of the Learned Advocate General,
Bihar in this regard.
6. That thereafter the concerned file
from the Law Department was received in the
office of the Advocate General, Bihar.
7. That thereafter the concerned file
was marked to the office of the Learned
Government Advocate No. 12 for the purpose of
drafting the letters patent appeal I.A. petition for
condoning limitation and challenging the order
dated 11.08.2017 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 19025 of
2016."
2. Sufficient cause has not been shown so as to
condoned enormous delay of 439 days. What has been stated is
the movement of the file insofar as filing L.P.A. Further, it is to
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1688 of 2018 dt.01-05-2024
be noted that there are no dates and events as to the movement
of the file. Therefore, there is a dearth of reasons so as to
condone the delay of 439 days.
3. Taking note of recent decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda
Koley, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 551. Para 10 to 14 of
the same deals with rejection of belated litigation.
4. Accordingly, taking note of the cited decision,
the present I.A. No. 9021 of 2018 stands rejected, consequently,
L.P.A. No. 1690 of 2018 stands dismissed.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
( Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
manish/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 06.05.2024
Transmission Date N.A
