Patna High CourtC. REV./444/2012dismissed

The Director, Khadi And Village Industries Commission And ANR. v. Upendra Kumar And ORS.

2015-09-03Mr. Justice Samarendra Pratap Singh2 pages

Patna High Court C. REV. No.444 of 2012 (2) dt.03-09-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Review No.444 of 2012 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16571 of 2008 ======================================================

1. The Director, Khadi & Village Industries Commission, Bihar State Office, P.O- B.V. College, Sheikhpura, Patna.

2. The Chief Executive Officer, Khadi & Village Industries Commission, Vilce Parle, West, Mumbai .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. Upendra Kumar S/O Sri Akshay Lal Rai Residing At Village- Mahuo Singh Rai, Police Station- Mahua, District- Vaishali.

2. The Senior Manager, Central Bank Of India Fraser Road Branch, Patna.

3. The Senior Manager, Regional Officer, Central Bank Of India, Muzaffarpur.

4. The Branch Manager, Central Bank Of Inida, Mahua Branch, Vaishali. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhanendra Chaubey, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate ======================================================

CORAM:

HONOURABLE MR.

JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL ORDER 03-09-2015 The petitioner seeks review of the order, dated 27.2.2012 passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No.16571 of 2008. I find that the writ application was filed on 17.11.2008. On 25.8.2011, this Court directed learned counsels for Khadi and Village Industries Commission as well as Central Bank of India to file their respective counter affidavit. Thereafter, the writ application was disposed of by order dated 27.2.2012 directing respondent No.2 to consider waiving the delay on the part of the petitioner in depositing of part of contributionS by 4-5 weeks and

Patna High Court C. REV. No.444 of 2012 (2) dt.03-09-2015 also taking into consideration that the petitioner is not a willful defaulter.

I find that there was no positive direction to respondent No.2 but the matter was remitted to him for fresh consideration in the facts of the case. The Respondent No.2, as such, will have to consider the matter by now instead of filing review application. I do not find any error of record to review the impugned order. This review application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J) KHAN/- U