The State Of Bihar, v. Nageshwar Prasad Yadav,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.194 of 2020 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18144 of 2010 ====================================================== 1.

The State of Bihar 2.

The Principal Secretary Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Deputy Secretary Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4.

The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Dehri-On-Sone, Distt.- Rohtas.

5.

The Executive Engineer, Sone Cnal Division, Ara, Distt.- Bhojpur. ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

Nageshwar Prasad Yadav, S/O Late Madho Prasad Yadav, r/O Vill.- Narhi, Hanumannager, P.S.- Madhepura, Distt.- Madhepura. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr.Deepak Sahay Jamuar, AC To AAG4 For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Satish Chandra Jha 3, Adv.

Mr.Shambhoo Kumar Suman, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI) 09-08-2024 Heard I.A. No. 1 of 2020.

2.There is delay of about 584 days in filing L.P.A. No. 194 of 2020.

3.Reasons assigned for condonation of delay are at para - 3 to 8. Perusal of para 3 to 8, no dates and events forthcoming except that file was moving from one office to another office for opinion/approval. Further, in para 9, appellant has quoted Supreme Court decisions in the case of State of

Patna High Court L.P.A No.194 of 2020(4) dt.09-08-2024 2/2 Bihar & Ors. Vs. Kameshwar Pd. Singh reported in 2000(3) PLJR (SC) 81, Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors reported in 1987(2) SCR 387 and State of Haryana Vs. Chandramani & Ors. reported in 1996(3) SCC

132. These decisions could have been appreciated by us provided sufficient cause has been shown in para 3 to 8. In absence of dates and events, one cannot draw inference that sufficient cause has been shown to condone enormous delay of about 584 days. Recently, in identical matter in L.P.A. No. 51 of 2021, we have elaborately examined how the interlocutory application for condonation of delay is filed in L.P.A. matters on behalf of the State.

4. In view of these facts and circumstances, I.A. No. 1 of 2020 for condonation of delay of about 584 days in filing L.P.A. stands rejected. Resultantly, L.P.A. No. 194 of 2020 stands dismissed. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of. (P. B. Bajanthri, J) ( Alok Kumar Pandey, J) mcv/- U