Ram Udgar Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3688 of 2018 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.338 of 2011 ====================================================== Ram Udgar Chaudhary Son of Sri Fudar Chaudhary Resident of VillagePaston-Navtoly, Police Station-Andharathari, District-Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

3. The Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar Patna

4. The District Magistrate, Madhubani

5. The District Superintendent of Education cum District Programme CoOrdinator, Madhubani

6. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jhanjharpur, District- Madhubani

7. The Block Development Officer, Andharathari Block, District Madhubani

8. The Block Education Extension Officer, AnDharathari Block, District Madhubani

9. The Mukhiya, Marukiya Gram Panchayat Andharatthari Block, DistrictMadhubani

10. The Panchayat Secretary, Marukiya Gram Panchayat, Andharatthari Block, District-Madhubani

11. Sat Nam Kanu Son of Sri Ramdeo Sah Resident of Village- Pastan, Police Station-Andharathari, District-Madhubani

12. Member District Teacher Employment APPellate Tribunal Madhubani ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Satish Chandra Jha For the Opposite Party/s :

Smt. Shilpa Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 20-02-2019 The present restoration petition has been filed for restoring the writ petition bearing CWJC No. 338 of 2011, which has stood dismissed on account of non-compliance of the peremptory order in the year 2011 itself.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on account of the fact that the computer was reflecting the

Patna High Court MJC No.3688 of 2018(4) dt.20-02-2019 2/2 status of the case to be pending, the petitioner could not know that the writ petition had been dismissed for default inasmuch as the Registry had also not served any memo of dismissal of the case, however, recently the learned counsel for the petitioner, after much pursuation of the matter, has come to know that the matter was dismissed for default in the year 2011 itself.

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the reasons mentioned in the present petition, the present petition is allowed and the writ petition bearing CWJC No. 338 of 2011 is restored to its original file.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) S.Sb/- U