Patna High CourtC. REV./245/2017dismissed

Navendu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-08-23Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Review No.245 of 2017 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9167 of 2015 ======================================================

1. Navendu Kumar son of Pitamaheshwar Prasad Singh Retd. Soil Conservation Engineer, Deptt of Agriculture, Bihar, Patna and resident of 'Smriti', Patliputra Path, Rajendra Nagar, Patna-16, Police Station- Kadam Kuan, District- Patna.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The Principal Secretary, Deptt. of Water Resources , Govt. of Bihar, Sichai Bhawan, Patna, Bihar.

3. The Divisional Commissioner cum Chairman , Kosi Command Area Development Agency, Saharsa, Bihar.

4. Executive Engineer, On Farm Development (OFD) Division, Kosi Command Area Development Agency, Araria.

5. Assistant Director, GPF Directorate, Pant Bhawan, Bailey Rd. Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anjani Kumar (Aag 4) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 23-08-2017 This review application has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 25.05.2017 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9167 of 2015 whereby the writ petition was disposed of in view of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that during pendency of the writ petition the grievances of the petitioner have been redressed.

The petitioner is seeking review on the ground set forth in para-11 of the review application, which reads as under :- "That on 25.5.2017, when the matter was taken up the learned counsel for the petitioner informed the Hon'ble Court that the Principal

Patna High Court C. REV. No.245 of 2017 (2) dt.23-08-2017 2/2 amount of G.P.F. has been paid during pendency of the writ application however, the stand of the respondent no.3 with regard to interest appears not to have been brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Court."

As no error apparent on the face of the record is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in my considered opinion, no ground for review of the order is made out. The review application is accordingly dismissed. (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) Pradeep/- U