Patna High CourtCWJC/22450/2013disposed

Tara Bhushan Prasad v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-04-05Mr. Justice Dr. Ravi Ranjan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22450 of 2013 ====================================================== Tara Bhushan Prasad S/O Late Baldeo Prasad Resident Of Village- Kurha, P.S-Sahebpur Kamal, District- Begusarai.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ballia, District- Begusarai.

3. District Collector Cum District Magistrate, Begusarai.

4. Divisional Commissioner, Monger.

.... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : M/s Pramod Man Bansh and Dr. Kumar Binode Bariar, Advocates For the State : Mr. Siddharth Shankar Pandey, AC to G.P. No. 24 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL ORDER 05-04-2016 Heard parties.

Petitioner has raised a limited issue at the time of hearing that his restoration application for restoring the Supply Revision No. 20/2011 which was dismissed for default on 4.7.2011, has been dismissed without assigning any reason and without considering the grounds raised by the petitioner. In my view when the revision was dismissed on 4.7.2011 and restoration case was immediately filed which appears to have been dismissed on 2.8.2011 the same should have been considered favourably as the endeavour of all the courts and authorities should be to decide the issue on merit in place of rejecting the same on technical grounds. It does not appear that

Patna High Court CWJC No.22450 of 2013 (5) dt.05-04-2016 2/2 any reason has been assigned for refusal to restore the revision to its original file.

In above view of the matter, this writ application is being disposed of with direction to the revisional authority to restore the revision of the petitioner and, thereafter, dispose of the Supply Revision No. 20/2011 on its own merit and in accordance with law within a reasonable time. It is made clear that the petitioner would be required to appear on the date fixed. If he again fails to appear on the date fixed then the revisional authority would be at liberty to proceed and decide the matter even in his absence.

(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J) Spd/- U