Patna High CourtL.P.A/1117/2017dismissed

The State Of Bihar And ORS v. Kamala Kant Jha

2018-07-26Mr. Justice Jyoti Saran,Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1117 of 2017 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7568 of 2013 ======================================================

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Bihar, Patna

2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department , Govt. of Bihar, Patna

3. The Joint Secretary to Government of Human Resources Development Department (Now Education Department), Govt. of Bihar, Patna

4. The Deputy Secretary to Government of Human Resources Development Department (Now Education Department), Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

5. The Director, Higher Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

6. The Director Cum Secretary, Maithili Academy, Bihar, Patna. ... ... Respondents-Appellants

Versus

Kamala Kant Jha, Son of Late Murlidhar Jha, Resident of Mohalla- Mithila Colony, Laxmi Sagar, P.S.- L.N.M. University Campus, District-Darbhanga, At present posted as Chairman, Maithili Academy, Patna ... ... Petitioner-Respondent ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Vinay Kumar Mishra For the Respondent/s :

Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN) 26-07-2018 Re:- I.A. No. 5812 of 2017 Heard Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwary, learned AC to AAG-15 on the condonation application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 414 days. We have perused the statements made in the interlocutory application and find that the explanation is vague and nowere justifies the delay of 414 days. Even otherwise, the opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge in the judgment

Patna High Court LPA No.1117 of 2017(6) dt.26-07-2018 2/2 and order impugned, prima facie, does not reflect any infirmity requiring interference.

In the circumstances so taken note of and not being satisfied with the explanation to the excessive delay of 414 days, we are persuaded to reject the interlocutory application. I.A. No. 5812 of 2017 is dismissed and accordingly this Letters Patent Appeal is also dismissed in limine.

(Jyoti Saran, J) ( Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) HR/- U