Basudeo Rajak v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.756 of 2017 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12718 of 2007 ====================================================== Basudeo Rajak son of Sri Munna Rajak @ Munna Dhobi, Resident of VillageBingar Khas Ramdari Hardia, Sector-A, P.S.- Rajauli, District- Nawada. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State Of Bihar through Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2.
The Collector, Nawada.
3.
The Superintending Engineer, Jaipath Anchal, Nawada. 4.
The Executive Engineer, Fulwaria Dam Division, Rajauli, Distt.-Nawada 5.
The Assistant Engineer, Fulwaria Dam Under Division No.4, Rajauli Distt.- Nawada 6.
The Rehabilitation Officer Fulwaria Dam Project Nawada Camp, Rajauli Distt.-Nawada.
7.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nawada. 8.
The Circle Officer, Rajauli, Nawada.
9.
The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Harida, Block Rajauli, District- Nawada. 10.
The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Harida, Block Rajauli, District- Nawada. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Barun Kumar Choudhary, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Anjani Kumar - Aag 4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORAL ORDER 09-12-2021 The writ petition being CWJC No. 12718 of 2007, titled as Basudeo Rajak Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. was dismissed on 26.11.2015 for non-appearance on behalf of the petitioner. The instant application for restoration of the same was filed only on 09.03.2017. No sufficient ground for delay or explanation for non-appearance is made out.
The matter is in reference to the employment to be
Patna High Court MJC No.756 of 2017(3) dt.09-12-2021 2/2 given to the family member of the person who stood displaced on account of flood in the year 1993. No statutory right emanates guarantying employment under the displacement scheme. It is merely a right for consideration and nothing more than that. At this point in time, no fruitful purpose will be served in having the matter adjudicated on merits for none is eligible. All litigation must come to an end at some stage. Litigant is not an illiterate/rustic person; not prevented from taking recourse to the remedies provided under law. He ought to have been vigilant in pursuing the matter. No reason stands assigned in not pursuing the matter with diligence or explaining the delay in filing the application seeking restoration of the petition.
As such, the instant application stands dismissed. (Sanjay Karol, CJ) Sujit/Ashwini U