Patna High CourtL.P.A/944/2016dismissed

Rakesh Ranjan v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-08-20Mr. Justice Jyoti Saran,Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.944 of 2016 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 20435 of 2010 ====================================================== Rakesh Ranjan Son of Sri Ram Gulam Singh Resident of Village- Bakulia, Police Station Ghorasahan, District East Champaran. .... .... Appellant

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Director, Primary Edcuation, Human Resources Development Department Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The District Superintendent of Education, East Champaran at Motihari.

4. The Block Development Officer, Ghorasahan, District East Champaran Motihari.

5. The Block Education Extension Officer, Ghorasahan, District East Champaran Motihari.

6. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Barwakala District East Champaran at Motihari.

7. The Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj Barwakala, District East Champaran Motihari.

8. The Member District Teacher Appellate Tribunal East Champaran Motihari.

9. Pradeep Kumar son of Ravindra Kumar Resident of Village Barwakala, PS Ghorasahan District East Champaran.

.... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN) 14 20-08-2018 I.A.No. 1543/2017 This interlocutory application has been filed for condonation of delay of 1 year and 339 days in filing the appeal. Having heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the records, we while recording dissatisfaction to the explanation given for condonation

Patna High Court LPA No.944 of 2016 (14) dt.20-08-2018 of delay, also take notice of the statement made in paragraph 16 of the Memo of Appeal, wherein the appellant has admitted that he had earlier moved in L.P.A.No. 1001/ 2013 to question the order of the learned Single Judge impugned herein but had chosen to withdraw the appeal.

For the reasons so recorded above, we are not persuaded to condone the delay and consequently, I.A.No. 1543/2017 is rejected.

L.P.A.No. 944/2016 is dismissed accordingly.

(Jyoti Saran, J) (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Surendra/- U