← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/189/2011dismissed

Rupan Ram v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2015-09-29Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 189 of 2011 ====================================================== Rupan Ram son of Sri Sita Ram, resident of village - Babhanuli, Police Station Ara Mufassil, District - Bhojpur.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Minor Irrigation, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Engineer-in-Chief, Department of Minor Irrigation, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

4. The Joint Secretary, Department of Minor Irrigation Government of Bihar, Patna.

5. The Superintending Engineer, (Mechanical) Nalkoop Anchal, Ara, Bhojpur.

6. The Executive Engineer, Nalkoop Division, Buxar.

7. The Sub-divisional Officer, Nalkoop Sub-division Buxar, District - Bhojpur.

8. Bihar Rajya Jal Vikas Nigam through its Managing Director,

9. The Managing Director, Bihar Rajya Jal Vikas Nigam, Patna.

10. The Chief (Administration), Bihar Rajya Jal Vikas Nigam, Patna. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shanti Pratap For the Respondent/s : None ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3.

29-09-2015 Heard Sri Shanti Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared on behalf of State. The petitioner, invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court, has prayed for directing the respondents to pay subsistence allowance. A plea has been taken that though, the petitioner was suspended, subsistence allowance was not paid. On perusal of the Annexure - 1 i.e. order of suspension, it is evident that suspension order was passed in the year 1979. No plausible explanation has been given in the writ

Patna High Court CWJC No.189 of 2011 (3) dt.29-09-2015 2/2 petition regarding delay in approaching the writ court. At least after almost about 35 years, the present writ petition has been filed.

The Court is of the opinion that since petitioner himself slumbered over his right for a long period, there is no question for exercising writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. The writ petition stands dismissed on the ground of delay itself.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay U