Umesh Chandra Prasad v. The State Of Bihar,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.62 of 2022 ====================================================== Umesh Chandra Prasad Son of Radheshyam Prasad R/o Village - Kudra Bazar, District- Rohtash.

... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar.

2.

Secretary General, Animal Husbandry and Fish Resources Department , Patna Bihar.

3.

Director, Animal Husbandry, Patna Bihar.

4.

Central Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Kendriya kshetra , Patna. 5.

District Animal Husbandry Officer, Rohtash, Sasaram. 6.

District Animal Husbandry Officer, Nalanda, Biharsharif. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Indradeo Prasad, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Md. Khurshid Alam, AAG 12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI) Date : 12-07-2022 Heard learned counsels for the parties.

2. In the instant appeal, appellant has questioned the validity of order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.08.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 16000 of 2010.

3. The present appeal is filed belatedly by 3 years 4 months and 24 days. The reasons assigned to condone the enormous delay is that the concerned advocate has not communicated the order. In other words, there was a lack of

Patna High Court L.P.A No.62 of 2022 dt.12-07-2022 2/2 communication among the appellant and his counsel. Such a sole ground cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of condoning enormous delay of 3 years 4 months 24 days. That apart, the appellant has not mentioned name of the lawyer and further on account of alleged negligence of service by the concerned lawyer, the appellant has not taken any action either in approaching Bar Council to take action against concerned advocate and so also he has not resorted in filing of complaint before the jurisdictional consumer forum. In the light of these facts and circumstances, enormous delay of 3 years 4 months 24 days cannot be condoned in filing the appeal.

4. Accordingly, I.A. 01 of 2022 stands rejected. In the result, appeal stands dismissed.

(P. B. Bajanthri, J) ( Rajiv Roy, J) GAURAV S./- AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 18.07.2022 Transmission Date