Patna High CourtC. REV./81/2014dismissed

The Bihar State Housingh Board, Patna And ORS. v. Hari Saran Thakur

2016-09-21Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Review No.81 of 2014 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13395 of 2009 ===========================================================

1. The Bihar State Housing Board, Patna through Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna.

2. The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna.

3. The Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna.

4. The Revenue Officer, Bihar State Housing Board, Bihar, Patna. .... .... Petitioners

Versus

Hari Saran Thakur, S/o Late Deepa Thakur, R/o Flat No. KSFA-3-1/26, Lohia Nagar, P.S Kankerbagh, District Patna.

.... .... Opposite Parties =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioners :

Mr. Anshuman Singh, Advocate For the Opp. Parties :

Mr. Siya Ram Shahi, Advocate Mrs. Shally Kumari, Advocate Ms. Namrata Singh, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 21-09-2016 Heard learned counsel representing the Housing Board extensively on the various facets why the review application is required to be allowed.

2. The more learned counsel for the Housing Board tried to convince the Court, the more the Court is convinced about the correctness of the order passed in the writ application on 05.08.2013.

3. Annexure-14 and 15 has been again gone through by rereading the two communications. There is absolutely no reflection that these two communications under the signature of the Executive Engineer of the Housing Board has any co-relation to the directive

Patna High Court C. REV. No.81 of 2014 dt.21-09-2016 2 / 2 issued by the learned Single Judge in the order contained in Annexure-12. It was for the said reason that the Court while disposing of the writ application stated "the petitioner is not bound to succumb to such a demand arbitrarily."

4. That being the position, no case for review of the order is made out. The effort on the part of the Housing Board is to wriggle out of their own omission and failure to carry out the judicial direction.

5. Review application is dismissed.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.) S.Kumar/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 22.09.2016 Transmission Date