Patna High CourtL.P.A/932/2017dismissed

Arjun Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-04-16Justice Smt. Nilu Agrawal,Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.932 of 2017 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10009 of 1999 ====================================================== Arjun Singh, Son of Ramotar Singh, Resident of Village- Bajidpur, P.S.- Ghosi, District- Jehanabad.

... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Commissioner, Minor Irrigation Department, New Secretariat, Patna.

4. The Chief Engineer (North) Minor Irrigation Department, Muzaffarpur.

5. The Superintendent Engineer, Minor Irrigation Circle, Combined Building, Muzaffarpur.

6. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Muzaffarpur.

7. Krishna Prasad son of Late Hari Nandan Prasad, Resident of South Mandiri, P.S.- Buddha Colony, District- Patna.

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

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Mukul Prasad 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) 16-04-2018 There is delay of almost four years in preferring the appeal. We are not satisfied with the reasons so offered for such extraordinary delay.

In view of the same, I.A. No. 6445 of 2017 is dismissed. As a consequence thereof, even the appeal is required to be dismissed.

The Court has also glanced through the order passed by the learned single Judge dated 25.09.2013 and did not find

Patna High Court LPA No.932 of 2017(5) dt.16-04-2018 2/2 any patent illegality on the face of the record which requires to be rectified in appeal. Claim of the appellant for engagement in a work charge established was disapproved way back in the year 1983 and thereafter in 1999 the writ application was preferred. Such disengagement does not create any legal right in favour of the appellant. Therefore, the appeal is a frivolous one. It is accordingly dismissed.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) ( Nilu Agrawal, J) Pawan/- U