Patna High CourtC. REV./174/2018dismissed

Rohtas v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-10-26The Chief Justice,Mr. Justice Dr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Review No.174 of 2018 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16093 of 2017 ====================================================== Rohtas, S/o Surat Singh, R/o Village- Kheri Damkan, P.s.- Gonda, DistrictSonipat, Haryana. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra

2. The Superintendent of Police, Saran at Chapra

3. The Excise Superintendent, Saran at Chapra

4. The Excise Inspector, Excise, Saran at Chapra

5. District Transport Officer, Sonepat, Haryana

6. The Police Inspector- cum- SHO, Chhapra Mufassil Police Station, Saran at Chapra ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Prakash Chandra, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Dhirendra Kumar, AC to AAG-6 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 26-10-2018 The present application has been preferred by the original petitioner-applicant requesting to review and recall the earlier order passed by this Court dated 13.11.2017 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 16093 of 2017 and to release the vehicle in question on furnishing the property papers in place of Bank Guarantee, as ordered.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents has pointed out that, in fact, before the order dated 13.11.2017 was passed, the District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra had already passed

Patna High Court C. REV. No.174 of 2018 dt.26-10-2018 2/2 an order of auction after concluding the confiscation proceeding, which was suppressed by the petitioner.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is not disputing that as on 13.11.2017, the confiscation proceeding had already been concluded and auction order had already been passed.

We are of the opinion that if the correct things would have been pointed out, even the order dated 13.11.2017 might not have been passed. Be that as it may, no case is made out to review the order dated 13.11.2017.

The present application stands dismissed.

(Mukesh R. Shah, CJ) (Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) uday/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 29.10.2018 Transmission Date NA