Mahanth Subhadra Das v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2171 of 2024 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13366 of 2023 ====================================================== Mahanth Subhadra Das wife and disciple of Late Mahant Ramjee Das, presentlly the Shebaiet of Ram Janaki Mutth, Bijaipur resident of village - Bijaipur P.S.- Vijaypur, district - Gopalganj, Bihar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the secretary -cum -legal remembrancer, Department of law and Justice, Bihar state govt., old Secretariat, Patna. 2.

The Secretary -cum-Legal Remembrancer, Department of law and Justice, Bihar state govt., old Secretariat, Patna.

3.

The District Magistrate, Gopalganj.

4.

The Sub Divisional Officer - Hathua, Gopalganj. 5.

Circle Officer - Vijaypur, Gopalganj.

6.

Bihar State Board Of Religious Trusts, through its President, 1 Vidyapati Marg, Patna, presently having office located near the DG - Home guard Headquarter, Chhajjubag, Patna - 1 7.

President, Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts, Patna Bihar. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Dev Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Government Advocate 7 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 09-08-2024 Heard the parties.

2. This application has been filed seeking modification of the order dated 06.11.2023 passed by this Court in CWJC No.13366 of 2023 whereby this Court while disposing the writ petition had directed the petitioner to file an application before the Board along with all the documents in support of her claim within a period of four weeks from the date of the order.

3. This Court had further directed the Board to

Patna High Court MJC No.2171 of 2024(2) dt.09-08-2024 2/2 consider the same and pass a reasoned order after giving proper opportunity to all concern, preferably within a period of eight weeks thereafter.

4. Mr. Dev Kumar Pandey, learned Advocate for the petitioner fairly submitted that because of some personal engagement and unavoidable circumstances the representation on behalf of the petitioner could not be filed within the period of four weeks prescribed by this Court and the same has been filed after delay of eight weeks. In such circumstances he needs modification of the order.

5. Be that as it may, considering the fact that the petitioner has already filed a proper representation in compliance of the orders of this Court, though belatedly, it is expected that the respondent Board shall consider and dispose off the same in terms of the orders of this Court dated 06.11.2023 within a further period of twelve weeks from today.

6. Accordingly, the modification application stands allowed.

(Harish Kumar, J) durgesh/- U