Patna High CourtC. REV./53/2017dismissed

Rohit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-07-19Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Review No. 53 of 2017 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 114 of 2015 ====================================================== Rohit Kumar, Son of Kumod Prasad Singh, Resident of Village- Jaluwar, P.S.- Gamharia, District- Madhepura.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna-17.

3. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Committee (T.E.T.), Buddha Marg, Patna.

4. The Deputy Secretary-cum-Public Information Committee, Patna.

5. The State Council of Educational Research & Training, Bihar, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna (BETET) - 2011. .... .... Respondents-Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Mukund For the Respondent/s : AC to Addl. Advocate General 15 Mr. Gyan Shankar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 5.

19-07-2017 Heard Sri Anil Kumar Mukund, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.C. to Addl. Advocate General - 15 as well as Sri Gyan Shankar, learned counsel for the opposite party/Bihar School Examination Board.

The present petition has been filed with a prayer to recall order dated 17-01-2017 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 114 of 2015. By the said order, the writ petition stood dismissed primarily on the ground that there was already a proceeding pending before the State Information Commission, vide Annexure - 17 to the writ petition.

Patna High Court C. REV. No.53 of 2017 (5) dt.19-07-2017 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the writ petition, the prayer was otherwise, but this Court has incorrectly dismissed the writ petition.

However, on perusal of the order dated 17-01-2017 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 114 of 2015 as well as submission made in the writ petition, it is evident that this Court, after noticing the fact that a proceeding was pending before the State Information Commission and an interim order was already passed, refrained to pass any order. Accordingly, there is no ground to recall my earlier order.

The review petition stands dismissed.

It goes without saying that if so advised, the petitioner may avail appropriate remedy.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay U