Patna High CourtC. REV./333/2016dismissed

Pushpa Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-02-08Mr. Justice Jyoti Saran2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Review No.333 of 2016 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18302 of 2009 ====================================================== Pushpa Devi W/o Deo Kumar Sharma, R/o Village + P.O.- Parsagarh Bazar, P.S.- Ekma, District- Saran (Chapra).

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The Secretary, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Director, Department of Panchayat Raj, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

4. The District Magistrate Saran at Chapra.

5. The District Panchayat Raj Officer Saran (Chapra).

6. The Block Development Officer, Ekma, Saran (Chapra).

7. The Sarpanch, Gram Katchahary Parsa Utari, Ekma, Saran (Chapra). ........ Respondent-Opp. Parties 1st Set.

8. Supriya Kumari D/o Ram Lal Prasad R/o Village + P.O.- Parsagarh Bazar, P.S.- Ekma, District- Saran (Chapra) as per connected writ petition but in reality she is W/o Shri Rajesh Sah R/o Village- Chatra Patila, P.O.+ P.S.- Kopa, Block- Jalapur, District- Saran. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : None For the Respondent/s : Mr. Manish Kumar, AC to AAG-6 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 08-02-2017 None appears on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned Assisting Counsel to Additional Advocate General No.6 appears and informs that the private respondent who is review petitioner herein had appeared before the writ court and opposed the writ petition which went in favour of the writ petitioner on grounds of the order being passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.

Pleadings on record reflect that the review petitioner was respondent no.8 to the writ petition and had contested the

Patna High Court C. REV. No.333 of 2016 (5) dt.08-02-2017 writ petition when the order under review was passed on 18.3.2010. Meaning thereby it has taken six years for the review petitioner to file this review application.

Even on merits there is nothing on record of the review petition which would persuade this Court for a review of the order of writ court whereby the order put to challenge was quashed on grounds of denial of reasonable opportunity to the writ petitioner. The grounds raised herein do not make out a case for review.

This civil review application is disposed of accordingly.

(Jyoti Saran, J) SKPathak/- U