Patna High Court - Orders
Sri Ram Prakash Yadav vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 21 August, 2014
Author: V.N. Sinha
Bench: V.N. Sinha, Prabhat Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8927 of 2014
======================================================
1. Sri Ram Prakash Yadav Son of Late Narain Yadav Resident of village -
Hasanganj, P.S. Kashim Bazar, P.O. Safiabad, District - Munger
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Law Secretary, Government of Bihar
3. The District Magistrate, Munger
4. Sri Sunil Kumar Gupta Son of Sri Balmiki Pd. Gupta, Mohalla
Laldarwaza, P.S. Kotwali, Distt. - Munger
5. Sri Kedar Nath S/o Late Prayag Mahto Mohalla - Laldarwaza, P.S.
Kotwali, District - Munger
6. Sri Krishna Kumar S/o Sri Kapildeo Sharma Vill Jankinagar, P.S. Naya
Ram Nagar, Distt. - Munger
7. Sri Binod Kumar Sharma S/o Late Jagdish Pd. Sharma Mohalla - Shastri
Nagar, P.S. Kasim Bazar, Distt. - Munger
8. Sri Amrendra Kumar Singh S/o Shyam Sunder Pd. Singh Mohalla -
Belan Bazar, P.S. Kasim Bazar, Distt. - Munger
9. Sri Hari Narain Prasad S/o Sri Jaleshwar Das, Kachahri Tola, Kutlupur,
P.S. Mufassil, Distt. - Munger Sl. No. 4 to 9 through C/o Bar Association,
Civil Court, Munger .... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jyoti Ranjan Jha, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. J.C. Jha, A.A. 1.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA)
5 21-08-2014Petitioner is an Advocate practicing in the Civil Court, Munger, has filed this writ petition assailing the letter of the State Government bearing Memo Nos. 1536, 1537, 1546, 1548, 1552 and notification bearing Memo No. 1554, all dated 28.02.2014 (Annexure-2 series), whereunder M/S Sunil Kumar Gupta, Kedar Nath, Krishna Kumar, Binod Kumar Sharma, Amrendra Kumar Singh and Hari Narayan Prasad, all Advocates practicing in Civil Court, Munger were appointed as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting the trial of cases Patna High Court CWJC No.8927 of 2014 (5) dt.21-08-2014 2 emanating in different departments of the Government.
2. The challenge is raised primarily on the ground that aforesaid appointments of Public Prosecutors have been made violating Rule 138 of the Bihar Practice and Procedure Manual as the names for such appointment were asked for being considered under Notice dated 05.06.2012, but recommendations were made on 04.11.2013, much after two months, as is required under the Bihar Practice and Procedure Manual. It is further submitted that aforesaid appointments were made during the period when election Code of Conduct was in vogue, as would appear from press note issued by the Election Commission of India dated 19.02.2014.
3. In support of the first submission that the provisions of Rule 138 is mandatory, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Jang Bahadur Singh vs. Secretary, Law (Justice) Dept & Ors. reported in 2013 (4) PLJR 68. The submission that recommendations are required to be made within a period of two months from the last date by which the names were called for, does not appear to be mandatory, as having called for the names the Collector of the district is required to consult the District Judge presiding the concerned Civil Court. The consultation process may take even more time than what is envisaged in Rule 138 of the Bihar Practice and Procedure Manual i.e. two months. In the present case also, from the pleadings made in the writ petition itself, it appears that more than two months was taken by the District Magistrate to Patna High Court CWJC No.8927 of 2014 (5) dt.21-08-2014 3 consult the District Judge in matter whereafter recommendations were made on 04.11.2013.
4. In the circumstances, we are of the view that in order to ensure effective consultation with the District Judge prior to making recommendation for appointment of the Special Public Prosecutor Collector of the district may require more time for completing the process of consultation. There cannot be any specified time limit within which process of consultation must be completed. The other submission that appointments were made during the period while the Model Code of Conduct was in vogue also appears to be misconceived in view of the fact that names were called for in 2012 and recommendations were made in 2013, much before the Model Code of Conduct became operative.
5. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the writ petition, which is dismissed.
(V.N. Sinha, J.) (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) KKSINHA/-
U