Satish Kumar Agarwal v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1341 of 2015 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21245 of 2014 ====================================================== Satish Kumar Agarwal Son of Late R.S. Agarwal resident of Mohalla - New Bahadurpur, On the Way of Shyam Mandir, P.S. Bahadurpur, District - Patna 16 at present Practicing as an Advocate Patna High Court, Patna ... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 2.
The District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram 3.
The Dehri Nagar Parishad, Dehri - On - Sone Dalmia Nagar, Rohtas through its Executive Officer 4.
The Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Dehri - On - Sone Dalmia Nagar, District - Rohtas at Sasaram 5.
The Chairman, Nagar Parishad, Dehri - On - Sone Dalmia Nagar, District Rohtas at Sasaram ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s :
Mr. Rajiv Verma, Senior Advocate Mr. Amarendra Kumar Pathak, Advocate For the Respondent State:
Mr. AJAY- GA5 Mr. Ashish Kr. Lal, AC to GA-5 For the Nagar Parishad :
Mr. Avinash Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) 22-08-2017 Heard learned senior counsel for the appellant and counsel for the State and Nagar Parishad, Dehri-on-Sone. Whatever was required to be said on the dispute with regard to the settlement of fee of the counsel in question has already been taken note of and opinion expressed by the learned single Judge. The admitted amounts have already been paid. It is the claim or the interpretation which the appellant is giving to
Patna High Court LPA No.1341 of 2015(2) dt.22-08-2017 2/2 his entitlement which has been seriously resisted by the Nagar Parishad. It is in this background that the learned single Judge gave liberty to the petitioner to move in other forum but refused to adjudicate the dispute under the summary proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is no infirmity in the order of the learned single Judge.
Appeal has no merit. It is dismissed.
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) ( Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Pawan/- U