Badrinath Prasad v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5536 of 2018 ====================================================== Badrinath Prasad S/o Late Chandeshwar Ram, resident of Village- Bishunpur Pakari, P.O.- Anishabad, P.S. Beur, District- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The Commissioner, Agriculture Production, Agriculture Department, New Secretariat, Patna.

3.

The Director, Agriculture Department, New Secretariat, Patna. 4.

The Director Administration Cum Additional Secretary, New Secretariat, Patna.

5.

The Joint Director Administration, Agriculture Directorate, Agriculture Department, New Secretaria 6.

The Deputy Director, Administration, Agriculture Department, New Secretariat, Patna.

7.

The Joint Director Plant Protection, Bihar Mithapur Form, Patna. 8.

The Assistant Director, Plant Protection, Bhojpur, Arra. 9.

The Deputy Director, Plant Protection, Patna Commissioner, Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shashi Bhushan Kumar, Adv For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Nilotpal Sharma, AC to Ex-GP-21 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 06-02-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the Letter No. 156 dated 27.02.2018 issued by the Joint Director Plant Protection, Bihar, Patna whereby complain of the petitioner for pay protection has been rejected.

3. Counsel has also prayed to provide all minority benefit of the cadre post of Kamda with pay protection with effect from his appointment dated 09.10.1972.

4. Counsel for the State has filed his counter affidavit

Patna High Court CWJC No.5536 of 2018(4) dt.06-02-2024 2/2 and it has been categorically stated that petitioner has filed six different writ petitions including the present one but he has not narrated the correct fact in the pleadings of the writ petition itself.

5. Counsel for the State further submits that in compliance of order dated 04.10.2017 passed in C.W.J.C No. 11877 of 2015, a reasoned order dated 22.11.2017 has been passed and communicated to the petitioner which is AnnexureR/A in which every such aspect which he has challenged in this writ petition has been discussed.

6. In the light of the submissions made by the parties, it transpires to this Court that petitioner has stated about two earlier writs and suppressed about other writ petitions.

7. This Court is of the view that the petitioner has not come before this Court with clean hands, and therefore, this writ petition is dismissed. However, petitioner is at liberty to challenge the order i.e. Annexure-R/A by virtue of the fresh writ petition.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) sunnykr/- U