← Library
Patna High CourtC. REV./430/2016dismissed

Anil Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-08-07Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Review No.430 of 2016 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13252 of 2015 ====================================================== Anil Kumar son of LateRam Dahin Prasad, resdnt of Village Ajwa, Police Station Naubatpur, District Patna At present residing at Khaprail Chak Persa Station, Police Station Persa, District Patna .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

2. The Chief Engineer, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

3. The Superintending Engineer, National Highway Work Circle, Road Construction Department, Patna

4. The Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

5. The Executive Engineer, National Highway Division, Gulzarbagh, Patna

6. The Executive Engineer, Road Division, Gulzarbagh, Patna City, Patna7. Rambha Devi wife of Late Ram Dahin Prasad, resident of Village- Ajwa Police Station- Naubatpur, District Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shaishav Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Suresh Kumar, AC to GP 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL ORDER 07-08-2017 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Also perused the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent State authorities.

Keeping in mind the statement made in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit, the reason for filing of the review application is obvious. What could not be achieved in the writ application in the order dated 01.07.2016 is now being sought to be achieved in the review application. The bona fide of the review is missing nor

Patna High Court C. REV. No.430 of 2016 (4) dt.07-08-2017 2/2 does it come within the framework of review. The same is dismissed.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) sk U