Kumari Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2547 of 2015 ===========================================================

1. Kumari Devi Wife of Sri Ghuran Das resident of village - Rajaulli, P.S. Deodha, District - Madhubani .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Deputy Director Welfare, Darbhanga Commissionary, Darbhanga

3. The District Programme Officer, Madhubani

4. The Child Development Programme officer, Jaynagar, District - Madhubani .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manish Kumar No 13 For the Respondent/s : Mr. SC10 Sheo Shankar Prasad =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 18-02-2015 This Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order contained in Annexure- 2 for the simple reason that the limitation petition, which was filed before the Deputy Director, Welfare with the appeal does not disclose any valid and honest reason for delay in filing the said appeal. A bald kind of assertion has been made that after passing of the order by the District Programme Officer, Madhubani on 18.11.2013, petitioner became sick on 22.11.2013 and remained so till 29.6.2014.

The above limitation petition has been brought along with supplementary affidavit of the petitioner with prescription of a doctor, Dr. Ravi Bhushan Prasad. It is a false and misleading kind of prescription, which has been annexed to cover up the inaction on the

Patna High Court CWJC No.2547 of 2015 dt.18-02-2015 2/2 part of the petitioner because no person can remain unwell with viral fever for more than 7 months. Obviously, this prescription was procured to cover up the omission and laches on the part of the petitioner to move the appellate authority.

Looking at the assertion in the limitation petition with a dishonest kind of prescription, which has been annexed by the petitioner to explain the delay, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

Writ is dismissed.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) sk U