Patna High CourtC. REV./259/2019dismissed

M/S D.M. Tiwary And Partners v. The State Of Bihar

2021-11-24Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL REVIEW No.259 of 2019 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9558 of 2014 ====================================================== M/s D.M. Tiwary and Partners through Bibhav Nath Tiwari, aged about 50 years (M), son of Late Ram Murti Tiwari, resident of Mohallah - Shiva Jee Nagar, P.S. - Khajanchi Hat, District - Purnea. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar 2.

The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Irrigation Building, Bihar, Patna 3.

The Engineer in Chief (North Bihar), Water Resources Department, Irrigation Building, Harding Road, Patna 4.

The Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Darbhanga 5.

The Superintending Engineer, West Koshi Canal Circle, Birpur, Distt.- Saharsa 6.

The Executive Engineer (Planning and Monitoring) Division No. 1, Water Resources Department, Irrigation Building, Harding Road, Patna 7.

The Executive Engineer Western Koshi Canal Division No. 1, Kanhauli, Distt.- Supaul ... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Amit Kumar Anand, Advocate For the State :

None ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 24-11-2021 The present petition has been filed for review of the order dated 29.10.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9558 of 2014.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the order dated 29.10.2018 directing payment of interest for the period from 11.11.2009 upto the date of payment on 03.03.2015, the same has not yet been paid. It is therefore submitted that an order be

Patna High Court C. REV. No.259 of 2019 dt.24-11-2021 2/2 passed for payment of interest starting from the year 1981-82 when the work had been completed.

3. None appears on behalf of the State when the matter is called.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having regard to the nature of the grievance raised, this Court is not satisfied that any case for review of the judgment dated 29.10.2018 has been made out as the petitioner is now seeking a fresh relief. No error in the said judgment, much less an error apparent on the face of it, has been pointed out.

5. The review petition accordingly stands dismissed.

6. Needless to say, the petitioner is at liberty to seek remedy before any other appropriate forum as may be available to him in accordance with law.

(Vikash Jain, J) Ibrar/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 29.11.2021 Transmission Date N.A.