← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/3593/2015disposed

Ramakant Mishra v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-12-17Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3593 of 2015 ====================================================== Ramakant Mishra, son of Late Shiv Prasann Mishra, village- Bhagwanpur Chowk, P.O. & P.S. Muzzaffarpur Town, District Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar, through its Principal Secretary, Dept. of Transport, Government of Bihar, Bishwashraiya Bhawan, Baily Road, P.O. & P.S. Patna

2. North Bihar Regional Transport Authority Muzaffarpur, through its Secretary, Office at- Court Compound P.O. & P.S. Muzaffarpur, District Muzaffarpur

3. Chairman, North Bihar Regional Transport Authority Muzaffarpur, Office atCourt Compound P.O. & P.S. Muzaffarpur, District Muzaffarpur ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Respondents :

Mr. Sita Ram Yadav, GP16 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 17-12-2018 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the proceeding of the meeting dated 10.12.2014 passed by Respondent No. 2 with respect to serial no. 92 of the proceeding by which the renewal application of the petitioner for the route - Bhagwatipur to Patna being Permit No. 465/2009 valid upto 14.10.2014 was cancelled on the ground of Model restriction without following the provisions of law.

2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner accepts that contrary to the statement made in paragraph 13 of the writ petition, the remedy by way of appeal is available to the petitioner against the impugned order.

3. In the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. The writ petition is disposed of with liberty

Patna High Court CWJC No.3593 of 2015 dt.17-12-2018 2/2 to the petitioner to prefer statutory appeal against the impugned order for redressal of his grievances.

4. It is made clear that in case such an appeal is filed, the concerned authority would have regard to the present proceeding being pursued by the petitioner, while considering any issue relating to condonation of delay, if applicable. BT/Chandran (Vikash Jain, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 19.12.2018 Transmission Date N.A.