Abhimanyu Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1374 of 2018 ====================================================== Abhimanyu Singh S/o Late Chandradeep Singh, Resident of Village-Chakni, P.S.-Brahmpur, Distt.-Buxar.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Home Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar, Patna. 3.

The District Consumer Disputes Disputes Redressal Forum, Buxar, Bihar. 4.

The Life Insurance Corporation of India through its Divisional Manager, Patna Division-2.

5.

The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Buxar Branch, Sahukatra, P.P. Road Buxar, ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shri Prakash Tiwari, Advocate For the Res. No. 4 & 5 :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar No. 1, Advocate Mr.Shri Prakash Tiwari, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 13-09-2019 A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. In the supplementary counter Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have brought on record the proof of dispatch of the notice by speed post on the address of the complainant as mentioned in the complaint petition. This Court is, therefore, satisfied with respect to the service of notice on the complainant-respondent.

At this stage, learned counsel for the complainant - writ petitioner submits that he would not press the writ application and seeks liberty from this Court to move in revision against the impugned judgment before the National

Patna High Court CWJC No.1374 of 2018(5) dt.13-09-2019 2/2 Consumer Disputes Redressal Commision, New Delhi. Learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India has no objection to the same.

In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the writ application is permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to seek his remedy before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commision, New Delhi. In case the revision application is preferred before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commision, New Delhi and question of limitation arises for consideration, the same will be considered keeping in view that the petitioner had moved this Court in the writ application on or about 19.12.2017 itself by serving copy of the writ application in the office of the learned Advocate General for the State and since then he was pursuing his remedy under bonafide belief.

The writ application is disposed off accordingly. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) vats/ved U