Abdul Hnnan v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.163 of 2021 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1418 of 2020 ====================================================== Abdul Hnnan, Son of Shekh Annual, resident of Village - Shankarpur, P.S. Sursand, District - Sitamarhi.
... ... Appellant.
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2.
The District Officer-Cum-District Magistrate-Cum-Chairman, Appointment Committee, Sitamarhi.
3.
The Superintendent of Police, Sitamarhi.
4.
The Deputy Development Commissioner, Sitamarhi. 5.
The Deputy Collector (Establishment), Sitamarhi. 6.
The In Charge Officer, General Administration Section, Collectorate, District - Sitamarhi.
7.
The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sitamarhi.
8.
The Anchaladhikari, Runni Saidpur, District - Sitamarhi. 9.
The Anchaladhikari, Sursand, District - Sitamarhi. 10.
The Anchaladhikari, Runni Saidpur, Distt.- Sitamarhi. 11.
The Anchaladhikari, Sahariyar, District - Sitamarhi. 12.
Suman Kumar, Son of Raj Kishore Das, Resident of Village- Manik Chauk, P.S. Runni Saidpur, District- Sitamarhi.
13.
Ram Nihora Paswan, Son of Ramswarath Paswan, Resident of VillageMahidwara, P.S. Runni Saidpur, District- Sitamarhi. 14.
Shivji Mahto, Son of Nathnu Mahto, Resident of Village- Chaurahia, P.S. Sahiyar and District- Sitamarhi.
15.
Rakesh Kumar, Son of Nageshwar Das, Resident of Village and P.O. Pawai, Prakhand- Deo, P.S. Mufassil, Aurangabad, District- Aurangabad. ... ... Respondents.
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant :
Mr. Bhola Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents :
Mr. AG.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI) 03-10-2024 I.A. No.1 of 2024:
Heard I.A. No.1 of 2024.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.163 of 2021(7) dt.03-10-2024 2/2
2. There is a delay of about 332 days in filing the present L.P.A. No.163 of 2021. Sufficient cause has not been shown. Be that as it may, it is necessary to reproduce the reasons assigned by the appellant at paragraph-3 of I.A. No.1 of 2024. Paragraph-3 of I.A. No.1 of 2024 reads as under: "3. That the petitioner has not committed deliberate delay in filing the instant Case rather due to lack of knowledge of the disposal of the instant Case the instant LPA has not been filed on time and thus, delay has been caused. The result of the CWJC No.1418/2020 has not been communicated to the appellant by the office of the lawyer within time and the petitioner has come to know about the aforesaid Case when he visited the net site of this Hon'ble Court on 20.01.2021 for watching the status of the Case."
3. To condone the delay of about 332 days in filing the present L.P.A. No.163 of 2021, sufficient cause has not been shown.
4. Accordingly, I.A. No.1 of 2024 stands rejected. Resultantly, the present L.P.A. No.163 of 2021 stands dismissed. (P. B. Bajanthri, J) ( Alok Kumar Pandey, J) P.S./- U