The State Of Bihar, Through The Executive Engineer v. Bishwanath Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Revision No.1 of 2017 ===========================================================
1. The State of Bihar, through the Secretary, Road Construction Dept. Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
2. The Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Special Secretary, Road Construction Dept. Vishweswaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
3. The Chief Engineer (South Bihar Wing), Road Construction Dept. Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
4. The Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Dept. Central Road Circle, Patna.
5. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Dept. Patna West Road Div. Patna.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
Bishwanath Prasad Son of Late Bandhu Mahto Resident of Kagazi, Main Road, Post Biharsharif, Police Station Biharsharif, District Nalanda. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dinesh Maharaj For the Respondent/s : Mr.
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 10-05-2017 Heard learned counsel for the parties in I.A. No. 41 of 2017 which has been filed for condonation of delay of 5 months 4 days in filing this revision application.
This revision application has been filed under Section 13 of the Bihar Public Works Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008 challenging the award dated 05.05.2016 by which the opposite party has been held
Patna High Court C.R. No.1 of 2017 dt.10-05-2017 entitled to the amount of Rs. 1,70,621/- which was deducted as time extension, along with 10% interest from the date of filing till realization has been passed.
In the interlocutory application (I.A. No. 41 of 2017) the only plea which has been raised on behalf of the petitioners for condonation of delay that after passing of the order by the tribunal, the file was sent to the law department for necessary action in the matter. There is no date disclosed nor there is any denial that the revision petitioners were not aware of the period of limitation as prescribed for filing the revision application. The casual manner in which the explanation has been furnished for condonation of delay of 5 months 4 days for filing this revision application is explicit from the averments in the interlocutory application itself. Learned counsel for the sole opposite party has referred to the order passed by this Court in C.R. No.
48 of 2015 wherein the identical issue has been decided by this Court refusing to condone the delay placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Amar Nath Yadav, 2014 (2) SCC 422 and in the case of Postmaster General Vs. Living Media India Limited, 2012 (3) SCC 563.
Patna High Court C.R. No.1 of 2017 dt.10-05-2017 away the accrued right of the other side. In view of the dictum of the Apex Court and in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not satisfied that sufficient explanation has been furnished on behalf of the revision petitioners for condonation of delay in filing this revision application.
The limitation petition (I.A. No. 41 of 2017) is, accordingly, dismissed. The revision application is consequently dismissed as barred by limitation.
(V. Nath, J) Devendra/- AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 15.05.2017 Transmission Date