Jitendra Sharma v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11768 of 2014 =========================================================== Jitendra Sharma, Son of Ram Ekbal Singh, Resident of Village- Jaipur, P.SMehandia, District- Arwal. .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, through Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya.
2. Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya.
3. District Magistrate/ Collector, Arwal.
4. Superintendent of Police ( S.P), Arwal.
5. Officer in- Charge,Mehandia, Police Station, Arwal. .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : M/s S.A. ALAM, SC 3 and Mahfoozur Rahman, AC to SC 3 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 25-01-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 5.6.2014 passed by the Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya in Arms Appeal No. 126/2013, as contained in Annexure 5, by which his appeal has been rejected on the ground of delay in preferring the same. Only one ground is raised on behalf of the petitioner that admittedly there is appeal has to be filed within 30 days from the date of issuing the impugned order but the same has filed after delay of about 16 days which was inordinate delay. However, the appellate authority could have granted at least one opportunity to the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.11768 of 2014 dt.25-01-2016 2/2 to file a petition for condoning the delay which was admittedly not filed.
In my view the technicality should not come in way of doing full justice. If the delay is merely of about 16 - 17 days then ordinarily one opportunity should have been granted by the appellate authority for filing a petition for condoning the delay even if it was not filed along with memorandum of appeal. Thereafter, the petition for condoning of delay should have been decided. Accordingly, the impugned order as contained in Annexure 5 is quashed and set aside.
The matter is remitted back to the appellate authority for taking a fresh decision in the matter. The petitioner would be required to file a petition for condoning the delay along with copy of this order within a period of six weeks from today. In such case, let the matter be heard in accordance with law.
The writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above.
(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J) Spd/- U