Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. The State counsel, on the other hand, refers to paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the circle Officer, Bikramganj and states that this aspect of the matte has been denied by the State. It is pleaded that the impugned order indicates that notices were served. In the affidavit of the State it has not been mentioned, that the State had derived the knowledge of the facts that notice was validly served on respondent no.8 Kamal Bahadur Singh in the proceeding under section 4(h) of the act from the records, rather it is stated that the statement is based on knowledge, which is not a proper manner to deny such a vital fact, as non service of notice, as it violates the principles of natural justice, non compliance of which, vitiates the entire proceeding. In view of the pleadings of the state and respondent no.8, it is difficult for this court to conclude and hold that in fact there was a valid service of notice on Kamal Bahadur singh.

13. These writ petitions are disposed of with the direction to the petitioners of both the writ petitions to produce a copy of this order before the D.C.L.R., Bikramganj, Rohtas district within six weeks on its receipt. The D.C.L.R. will fix a date for the parties to appear. No fresh notice is required to be given to the petitioners in the case. 

Patna High court,                                          ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)
September 7, 2010,
NAFR / haque