Sabina Parween v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1339 of 2015 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7850 of 2009 ======================================================

1. Sabina Parween, W/O Dr. Sarfooz Ahmad, Resident of Village Ghosian Kala, P.S. Bikramganj, District Rohtas.

.... .... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The Secretary, Primary & Adult Education Department, Bihar, Patna.

3. The Director, Panchayati Raj, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4. The District Magistrate, Rohtas (Sasaram).

5. The District Superintendent of Education, Rohtas.

6. The Block Development Officer, Bikramganj, Rohtas.

7. The Block Education Extension Officer, Bikramganj, Rohtas.

8. The Mukhiya Gram Panchayat, Ghusiakala, P.S. Bikramganj, Rohtas.

9. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Ghusiakala, P.S. Bikramganj, District- Rohtas.

10. Richa Kumari, D/o Dudheshwar Mishra, Resident of Village Ghusian Kala, P.S. Bikramganj, District Rohtas.

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) 09-01-2017 Heard counsel for the appellant.

Keeping in view the unsatisfactory explanation offered in the limitation petition where delay of almost 300 days has taken place and that is when the appellant had appeared and contested the writ application in the very first place, that itself is a good ground to reject the limitation petition and as a consequence thereof, even the appeal.

Patna High Court LPA No.1339 of 2015 (2) dt.09-01-2017 2/2 Counsel for the appellant has been fair enough to point out to this Court that a Division Bench had taken cognizance of the order under appeal and has held in favour of the appellant of LPA No.1366 of 2012.

Since the decision of a Division Bench is already in place against the appellant and in favour of the private respondent no.10, that itself is also a good ground not to entertain the limitation as well as the appeal. Both stand rejected.

Copy of the order passed by another Division Bench is placed on record for future reference.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) (Nilu Agrawal, J) sk U