Patna High Court - Orders
Shri Ravindra Kumar Singh vs The Union Of India & Ors on 19 April, 2012
Bench: Chief Justice, Birendra Prasad Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No. 223 of 2012
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15644 of 2010
With
Interlocutory Application No. 1367 of 2012
In
Letters Patent Appeal No. 223 of 2012.
======================================================
Shri Ravindra Kumar Singh, son of Shri Triveni Singh, Resident of Ashiana
Nagar, Police Station - Rajeev Nagar, District - Patna
.... .... Petitioner / Appellant
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs,
New Delhi
2. The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi
3. The Secretary, Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House,
Shahjahan Road, New Delhi
4. The Director General, Central Industrial Security Force, 13 CGO,
Complexes, Lodhi Road, New Delhi
5. The Director, Personnel, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi
6. The Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, Patna
7. The Secretary, Department of Personal and Training, Government of
India, New Delhi
8. The Deputy Inspector General, Personnel, Central Industrial Security
Force, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi
9. The Chairman, the Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House,
Sah Jahan Road, New Delhi
10. Shri B. S. Verma, then Commandant, CISF, BCCL, Dhanbad in 2004-
05 as Reporting Authority in the ACR, Now Retired, Add. Village-
Kothijamogiki Mather, P.O. - Palaniya, Via - Arki Police Station, Distt. -
Solan (H.P.) Pin -173208
11. Shri S.K. Mondal, then DIG, CISF, BCCL, Dhanbad in 2004-05 as
Reviewing Authority in the ACR
12. Smt. Manjari Jaruhar, IPS, then IG, CISF, Patna in 2004-05 as
Accepting Authority in the ACR
13. Sri S.A. Naeem, then Commandant, CISF, BCCL, Dhanbad (2003-04),
Reporting Authority,
2 Patna High Court LPA No.223 of 2012 (3) dt.19-04-2012
2/4
14. Sri H.V. Chaturvedi, then DIG, CISF, BCCL, Dhanbad (2003-04),
Reviewing Authority,
15. Sri S.P. Singh, IPS, then I.G., CISF (2007-08), Accepting Authority
.... .... Respondents / Respondents.
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Daya Shanker Prasad and
Mr. Gautam Shah, Advocates.
For the Respondents :
Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Rai, Sr.C.G.C and
Mr. Shiv Kumar, C.G.C.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
3 19-04-2012Re. Interlocutory Application No. 1367 of 2012.
This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 1 year and 34 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal.
The appellant, then a Deputy Commandant in the Central Industrial Security Force, filed CWJC No. 15644 of 2010 under Article 226 of the Constitution against the order of rejection of his representation in respect of the confidential records for the years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2007-08 and 2008-09. The learned single Judge, by the judgment and order dated 29th October 2010, allowed the writ petition and set aside the orders made by the authorities below. In respect of the grievance of the appellant, the learned single Judge directed that the representation made by the appellant in respect of the confidential records for the years 2003-04, 2007-08 and 2008-09 be decided keeping in view the Government of India Circular dated 16 th November 2005. The Deputy Secretary (Personnel), Government of India 3 Patna High Court LPA No.223 of 2012 (3) dt.19-04-2012 3/4 has, under Office Memorandum dated 23rd June 2011, made order in respect of the confidential records of the appellant for the relevant years. It appears that feeling aggrieved by the said orders, the appellant filed contempt petition being MJC No. 4379 of 2011 that came to be disposed of on 8th December 2011. The learned single Judge observed that the appellant will have liberty to assail the orders if he is aggrieved by the same. Since the aforesaid order dated 8th December 2011, the appellant has filed the present Appeal in February 2012 after a delay of more than one year.
It is evident that the appellant was satisfied with the impugned order dated 29th October 2010. He waited for the implementation of the said order. But feeling dissatisfied with the orders made in compliance with the said order dated 29th October 2011; the appellant has preferred the above Letters Patent Appeal No. 223 of 2012. The delay can not be said to be on account of sufficient cause.
In our opinion, the impugned judgment and order dated 29th October 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 15644 of 2010 having been implemented, Appeal against the said judgment is not maintainable. In the event the appellant is not satisfied or is aggrieved by the above-referred orders made in compliance with the order dated 29th October 2010 made on CWJC No. 15644 of 2010, the appellant has a fresh cause of action. Merely because the orders are not to the satisfaction of the appellant, this Appeal is not maintainable.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal and the Interlocutory Application are disposed of.
It is clarified that the appellant shall have liberty to 4 Patna High Court LPA No.223 of 2012 (3) dt.19-04-2012 4/4 challenge the orders made in compliance with the aforesaid order dated 29th October 2010 in a substantive proceeding.
(R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J) Dilip.