Dhananjay Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL REVIEW No.175 of 2019 Arising out of Letters Patent Appeal No.1937 of 2015 ====================================================== Dhananjay Singh S/o Ram Bhaju Singh Resident of village and P.S.- Nasriganj, District- Rohtas (Sasaram).

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

The Mines Commissioner Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.

The Deputy Secretary, Mines and Mineral Department, Bihar, Patna 4.

The Deputy Director, Mines, Magadh Circle Gaya, District- Gaya. 5.

The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Aurangabad, District- Aurangabad. 6.

The Assistant Mines Officer, Aurangabad, District- Aurangabad. 7.

The Certificate Officer Mining, Magadh Circle Gaya, District- Gaya. 8.

The Assistant Director-cum-Adhiyachana Padadhikari, Aurangabad, DistrictAurangabad. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Purshotam Kumar Jha, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, GA 7 with Mr. Gopal Krishna, AC to GA 7 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH) Date : 28-08-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to GA 7 for the State.

2. The petitioner has moved the Court seeking review of the judgment dated 07.04.2016 passed in LPA No. 1937 of 2015

Patna High Court C. REV. No.175 of 2019 dt.28-08-2019 2/3 which, in turn, arose out of the judgment dated 13.01.2015 passed in CWJC No. 3029 of 2014.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the basis of the admitted position, the work order for mining was issued on 23.02.2007 and on 3rd December, 2007 the same was cancelled, though the period for which it was issued from 01.01.2007 to 31.12.2007. He submitted that in view thereof, in the proportion of the days for which he was not allowed to do the mining work in terms of the order of the authorities themselves, he is entitled to refund of the security deposit to the authorities.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State, we do not find that there is any ground to review the judgment dated 07.04.2016 passed in LPA No. 1937 of 2015. The writ petition on which the Letters Patent Appeal came to be instituted did not seek any relief with regard to such issue raised by the petitioner today before the Court. Moreover, as has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner himself, there is already an order passed on 10.05.2011 in CWJC No. 16165 of 2009 which addresses the issue raised before the Court today.

5. In view thereof, the application stands disposed off with the observation that it shall be open to the petitioner to pursue

Patna High Court C. REV. No.175 of 2019 dt.28-08-2019 3/3 his remedy available to him, in accordance with law, before the appropriate forum, for such grievance.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) ( Madhuresh Prasad, J) Anjani/- AFR/NAFR U