Patna High CourtL.P.A/1736/2015dismissed

Shri Arjun Pandit v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-04-28Mr. Justice Sudhir Singh,The Chief Justice2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1736 of 2015 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 21887 of 2014 =========================================================== Shri Arjun Pandit S/o Late Jageshwar Pandit R/o village - Navtolia Banni, P.O. Babubagicha via Mansi, District - Khagaria .... .... Appellant

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

2. The Director, Land Record and Survey Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

3. The Collector - Cum - Settlement Officer, Khagaria

4. The Incharge Settlement Officer, Khagaria

5. Shri Ravindra Kumar Singh, Assistant Settlement officer, Khagaria .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Ms. Archana Jha, Advocate. Mr. Alok Ranjan, Advocate.

For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sriram Krishna, AC to SC-11 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 28-04-2017 Considering the fact that the learned writ court has refused to interfere into the matter and issued a mandamus only on account of the fact that the appointment in question was a contract appointment and after its termination, mandamus for extension of contract could not be granted.

We see no reason to make any indulgence into the matter. However, in case any, alternate remedy is available to the appellant, the dismissal of the writ petition or this appeal shall not be deemed to

Patna High Court LPA No.1736 of 2015 dt.28-04-2017 2/2 the petitioner. In case the petitioner has any grievance with regard to arbitrary action on the part of the respondent, it is the matter not extending the petitioner's contract, liberty shall be available to the petitioner to bring to the notice of higher authority these facts and it should be for the higher authority to look into the matter and grant benefit to the petitioner as permissible under law. With the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner, for the present, finding no case for indulgence into the matter. We dispose of this appeal.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Sudhir Singh, J) Amit/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 04-05-2017 Transmission Date NA