Jay Kishore Kumar v. The District Board Arwal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6773 of 2021 ====================================================== Jay Kishore Kumar, male, aged about 52 years, Son of Late Sitaram Chourasia R/o Village Jai Bigha, P.O.- Jaipur, P.s.- Mehandia, District- Arwal ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The District Board Arwal through its Chief Executive Officer cum District Development Commissioner, Arwal (Bihar) 2.

District Magistrate, Arwal 3.

Deputy Development Commissioner cum Chief Executive Officer, Arwal District- Arwal 4.

Block Development Officer, Arwal ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Diwakar Prasad Singh, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Kumar Alok SC-7 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH) 03-02-2022 This matter has been taken up for hearing online because of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions.

2. The petitioner has put to challenge an order dated 01.09.2016 passed by the Deputy Development Commissionercum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Arwal, whereby license granted to the petitioner for running a shop has been cancelled. The allegation is that the petitioner, instead of doing his own business had sublet the premises in question to another person, in breach of the terms of the license.

Patna High Court CWJC No.6773 of 2021(3) dt.03-02-2022 2/2

3. It is the petitioner's case that before passing of the said order dated 01.09.2016 no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner.

4. It is evident from the pleadings on record that passing of the said impugned order dated 01.09.2016 was in the petitioner's knowledge. It is the petitioner's case that he had represented before the Deputy Development Commissioner in 2016.

5. This writ application was presented before this Court after 17.02.2021 and thus registered on 05.03.2021. The petitioner approached this Court nearly four and half years after passing of the impugned order. There is no cogent explanation given in the writ application justifying delay in approaching this Court invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. In our opinion, this writ application deserves to be dismissed on the said ground alone and is dismissed accordingly.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) ( Madhuresh Prasad, J) shyambihari/- U