Ajit Kumar v. The Union Of India And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Review No.31 of 2018 In Letters Patent Appeal No.1768 of 2016 ====================================================== Ajit Kumar, S/o Sri Ram Pravesh Sharma, Resident of Village- Gopalpur, P.O.- Jamuk, P.S.- Parasbigha, District- Jehanabad (Bihar). ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi.
2. The DG, CRPR, Block No. 1, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
3. The Inspector General of Police, Bihar Sector, CRPF, Digha Complex, Ashiyana Nagar Post, Patna.
4. The Addl. DIG of Police, GC, CRPF, Mokamaghat, Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 06-10-2018 Re: I.A. No. 4865 of 2018
1. Present Interlocutory Application has been filed for condonation of delay of six days in preferring the review application.
2. Considering the averments made in the application in respect of prayer to condone the delay and as sufficient cause has been shown, delay of six days in preferring the review application is hereby condoned and the main review application itself is heard today. I.A. No. 4865 of 2018 stands disposed of. Re: Civil Review No. 31 of 2018
3. Present application has been preferred by the
Patna High Court C. REV. No.31 of 2018(5) dt.06-10-2018 2/2 original writ-petitioner to review and/or recall the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 21.12.2017 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1768 of 2016.
4. Having heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant, no case is made out to review and/or recall the order passed by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1768 of 2016. There is no error apparent on the face of the record pointed out by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant. On the contrary, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has made submissions on merits as if he is arguing the main Letters Patent Appeal. After considering all the materials on record and the fact that the original writpetitioner was a probationer and after completion of the probation period his services were put to an end without any stigma or any reasons as such stated and thereafter the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed. Hence, the present Review Application stands dismissed.
(Mukesh R. Shah, CJ) (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) P.K.P./-R.S.Sen U