The State Of Bihar v. Braj Bhushan Sharma

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1243 of 2023 In Letters Patent Appeal No.1157 of 2019 ====================================================== 1.

The State of Bihar.

2.

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

3.

The Engineer in Chief Madhya cum the Disciplinary Authority, Water Resources Department, Government.

4.

The Officer on Special Duty, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

5.

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

6.

The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Balmiki Nagar, District West Champaran, Bihar.

7.

The Executive Engineer, Main Western Canal Division, Balmiki Nagar, District West Champaran, Bihar.

8.

Sri Ram Pukar Ranjan son of Late Laxmi Baitha at present posted as Engineer in Chief Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, resident of Mohalla 4B, Khushi Villa, P.S. Budha Colony, District Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

Braj Bhushan Sharma son of Late Ram Govind Sharma, Resident of Near Jail Road, Shahpur, Govind Complex, P.s. Shahpur, District Gorakhpur Uttar Pradesh.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar, AC to AAG 4 For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI) 14-02-2025 Heard the present MJC No. 1243 of 2023 for modification of the order dated 12.12.2022 passed in LPA No. 1157 of 2019.

Patna High Court MJC No.1243 of 2023(3) dt.14-02-2025 2/2

2. We have granted three months time to complete the inquiry from the date of receipt of the order dated 12.12.2022 passed in LPA No. 1157 of 2019. It was uploaded on 15.12.2022, therefore, three months lapsed on 14.03.2023. Assuming that there is lack of communication from the Office of the learned Advocate General and the concerned department, one can understand one or two months, on the other hand, it is more than one month, therefore, question of modification is not warranted. That apart, time limit stipulated by this Court has already spent its force as on 14.03.2023, if the date of uploading the judgment is taken into consideration.

3. Accordingly, present MJC No. 1243 of 2023 stands dismissed.

(P. B. Bajanthri, J) (Purnendu Singh, J) GAURAV S./- U