Patna High Court - Orders
The State Of Bihar & Ors vs Madan Mohan Singh & Anr on 24 August, 2010
Bench: Chief Justice, Jyoti Saran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
LPA No.439 of 2010
In
Civil Review No. 192 of 2008
In
CWJC No. 12702 of 2007.
================================================
1. The State of Bihar through Commissioner & Secretary, Human
Resources Development Deptt. Vikas Bhavan, Patna
2. Commissioner and Secretary, Human Resources Development
Deptt., Vikas Bhawan, Patna
3. Director, Primary Education, Bihar Human Resources
Development Deptt., Vikas Bhavan, Patna
4. District Superintendent of Education, Jamui
5. District Provident Fund Officer, Jamui
....... Respondents/Review Petitioners/Appellants
Versus
1. Madan Mohan Singh, S/o Late Hansraj Singh, R/o Vill.- Basaiya,
P.O.- Mahadeo Sumana, P.S.- Sikandara, Distt.- Jamui
.......... Petitioner/Opposite 1st Party/Respondent 1st party
2. Accountant General, Bihar, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna
........... Respondent/Opposite 2nd Party/Respondent 2nd Party.
================================================
Appearance:
For the appellants: Mr Dhirendra Jha, Advocate.
For the respondents:
Mr A.K. Choudhary,
Mr P.K. Verma and
Mr Prakash Kumar, Advocates.
===============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN
ORAL ORDER
(Per : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
4. 24.08.2010. This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the State of Bihar against the judgment and order dated 19.02.2009 passed by the 2 learned single Judge in Civil Review No. 192 of 2008 after a considerable delay of 340 days.
As to the delay, we find no cause much less a sufficient cause for such delay. On merits also we are satisfied that the matter does not need consideration for what the State of Bihar intends to do is to enquire about the genuineness of the original certificate of the respondent-writ petitioner which enquiry is pending since 1993. In the meantime the writ petitioner has retired from service in the year 2006 and is now waiting for remittance of his retrial dues.
We see no justification for the State Government to have delayed the enquiry for 17 years. No ends of justice would be met by allowing the State to make such enquiry now after 17 years and four years after the writ petitioner has retired from service.
No case for interference is made out. Limitation Application (I.A. No. 2378 of 2010), Letters Patent Appeal and Stay Petition (I.A. No. 2379 of 2010) stand disposed of.
( R. M. Doshit, CJ) ( Jyoti Saran, J) Dilip