Patna High CourtC. REV./271/2017dismissed

Raj Narayan Pandey v. The Union Of India And ORS

2017-12-06Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Review No.271 of 2017 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18560 of 2008 ======================================================

1. Raj Narayan Pandey, Son of Late Kapildeo Pandey, Resident of VillageBarkagaon, P.O- Barkagaon, P.S.- Panchrukhi, District- Siwan. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home, New Delhi.

2. The Police Deputy Inspector General, Central Reserve Police Force, Salbagan, Agartalla (Tripura).

3. The Additional Police Deputy Inspector General, Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force, Salbagan, Agartalla (Tripura).

4. The G.C. Officer, Central Reserve Police Force, Salbagan, Agartalla (Tripura).

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Waliur Rahman For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anjani Kr. Sharan, (Assr. Soc. Gen.) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 06-12-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioner has filed this review petition against the order dated 20.02.2017 by which the writ petition was dismissed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on that date nobody had appeared on behalf of the petitioner and it was held that the departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner in Agartala. The petitioner participated in the departmental proceeding thereafter the order was communicated to the petitioner at his native place, i.e., in the district of Siwan. The

Patna High Court C. REV. No.271 of 2017 (4) dt.06-12-2017 2/2 learned counsel for the petitioner though submits that the finding of this court that this court lacks territorial jurisdiction is against the finding of the division bench in the case of Saryu Singh v. Union of India & Ors reported in 2015(2) PLJR 256, but in my view the same may be a good ground for appeal but the same does not make out a case for review.

On the face of it, I do not find any error in the order. This review petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) BKS/- U