Patna High CourtL.P.A/1381/2017disposed

Siyaram Yadav v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-12-18The Chief Justice,Mr. Justice Dr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1381 of 2017 Arising out of C.W.J.C. No. 10624 of 2017 ====================================================== Siyaram Yadav, Son of Late Mochan Yadav, Resident of Village-Hirolawa, P.S.-Shankarpur, District-Madhepura, Proprietor of M/S Hilolawa Rice Mill, Zirwa Mandheli PACS, Madhepura.

... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and Civil Supply, Patna.

2. The District Magistrate, Madhepura.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Madhepura.

4. The Certificate Officer, Madhepura.

5. The Deputy Superintendent, of Police, Madhepura.

6. The District Manger, Bihar State Food & Civil Supply Corporation, Madhepura.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, Advocate For the B.S.F.C.

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate For the State :

Mr. S. Raza Ahmad, Advocate Mr. Alok Ranjan, A.C. to AAG-5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 18-12-2017 Seeking exception to an order dated 29.08.2017 passed by the learned Writ Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10624 of 2017 this appeal has been filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. In the matter of recovery effected against the appellant under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act the learned Writ Court found that the appellant has a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 60 and granting

Patna High Court LPA No.1381 of 2017 dt.18-12-2017 2/2 interim protection appellant has been relegated to take recourse to the remedy of filing an appeal.

In our considered view, in doing so, the learned Writ Court has not committed any error warranting reconsideration.

Even though learned counsel tried to indicate that for filing an appeal the appellant will have to deposit 40% of the amount and in certain other cases this Court had interfered into the matter but in the facts and circumstances of the present case when we find that the appellant has a statutory remedy and the learned Writ Court after granting interim protection has only relegated the appellant to take recourse to the said remedy, we are not inclined to interfere into the matter. The Letters Patent Appeal stands disposed of. (Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) P.K.P.

AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.

CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 04.01.2018 Transmission Date