Ravindra Prasad v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1118 of 2016 In Letters Patent Appeal No.21 of 2015 ====================================================== Ravindra Prasad, Son of Sri Pawhari Prasad Resident of village - Shekh Parsa, P.S. Manjhagarh, District - Gopalganj the then officer Incharge, P.S. Pusa, District - Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

The Home Commissioner, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3.

The Director General Cum - Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna 4.

The Additional Director General of Police Vigilance, Investigation Bureau, Bihar, Patna 5.

The Commissioner Cum Secretary, Department of Transport Government of Bihar, Patna 6.

The Motor Vehicle Inspector, Samastipur 7.

The District Magistrate, Samastipur 8.

The Superintendent of Police, Samastipur 9.

Devendra Rai, Son of Late Laldhari Rai, Resident of village - Mahmada, P.S. Pusa, District - Samastipur ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Prem Prakash Poddar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. S.D. Yadav, AAG-9 Mr. Nagindra Kumar, AC to AAG-9 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) 20-02-2023 An appeal under Letters Patent of this Court was filed by the appellant giving rise to LPA No. 21 of 2015, which was dismissed for default on 12.01.2015. The said appeal was filed against an order dated 13.08.2014 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on a review application of the petitioner seeking review of the order passed in CWJC No. 8330 of 2007.

Patna High Court MJC No.1118 of 2016(2) dt.20-02-2023 2/2 This Court dismissed the review application by an order dated 13.08.2014 with an observation that the review application was dilatory and malafide.

After dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal for default the petitioner filed the present application for restoration on 01.04.2016 with an application for condonation of delay. It has been stated in the application seeking condonation of delay that the learned counsel for the petitioner was seriously indisposed on account of the fact that he was suffering from jaundice and was advised rest for a continuous period of six months.

Today, when the matter has been called, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.

We are not satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application seeking condonation of delay.

I.A. No. 2706 of 2016 seeking condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the application for restoration is also dismissed.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, ACJ) ( Jitendra Kumar, J) Rajesh/- U