Patna High CourtL.P.A/295/2018dismissed

Bijendra Yadav @ Bijendra Prasad Yadav v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-12-21The Chief Justice-,Justice Smt. Anjana Mishra3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.295 of 2018 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6581 of 2013 ====================================================== Bijendra Yadav @ Bijendra Prasad Yadav, Son of late Baldeo Prasad Yadav Resident of Village Panjwara P.S. and District Banka ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Rural Development Department Government of Bihar New Secretariat Patna

2. The District Magistrate, Banka

3. The District Development Commissioner, Banka, Bihar

4. The District Provident Fund Officer, Banka Bihar

5. The Treasury Officer, District- Banka, Bihar

6. The Block Development Officer, Katoria District Banka

7. The Block Development Officer, Rajaoun District Banka

8. The Accountant General Bihar Bir Chand Patel Marg, Patna ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Jagadish Prasad Bhagat, Advocate Mr. Bijendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Anjani Kumar, AAG-4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 21-12-2018 Heard Shri Jagadish Prasad Bhagat, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Anjani Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General for the State.

2. There is a chequered history of this litigation and which is evident from the following orders:- (a) C.W.J.C. No. 3379 of 2012, disposed of on 21.02.2012;

(b) M.J.C. No. 5891 of 2012, disposed of on

Patna High Court LPA No.295 of 2018(5) dt.21-12-2018 2/3 25.06.2014;

(d) C.W.J.C. No. 12288 of 2014, disposed of on 21.03.2017;

(e) L.P.A. No. 702 of 2017, disposed of on 19.12.2017.

3. It is in this background that the appellant has now come up assailing the judgment dated 5th March, 2014 in the present appeal which is reported to be highly belated by 3 years, 9 months and 26 days.

4. In the affidavit filed in support of the Limitation Application, it is contended that a pure question of law has to be decided by the Court and, therefore, the delay should be condoned. In Paragraph 5 it has been stated that the lawyer in his innocence not having much experience of work filed one writ petition after the other and, therefore, this litigation should not be preempted by the technicalities of limitation.

5. From the orders that have been referred to by us hereinabove, we find that detail indications have been given and it also appears that the lawyers who had earlier conducted the matter could not be underestimated about their capacity to

Patna High Court LPA No.295 of 2018(5) dt.21-12-2018 3/3 understand the outcome of the litigation keeping in view the fact that the appellant was aware of the rejection of his representation when the contempt application was disposed of on 25th June, 2014.

6. In the given circumstances, we do not find any sufficient cause having been shown to condone the delay inasmuch as the appellant was pursuing the litigation on legal grounds that were available to him and, therefore, to take the plea that he did not have any sound legal advise, does not appear to be correct. The affidavit, therefore, filed in support of the delay condonation application does not inspire confidence. The delay condonation application (I.A. No. 1718 of 2018) stands rejected and consequently the appeal also stands rejected accordingly.

(Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, CJ) (Anjana Mishra, J) P.K.P./-Priyanka U