Harendra Prasad Sinha @ Harindra Prasad Sinha v. The Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Review No.95 of 2018 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3752 of 2018 ====================================================== Harendra Prasad Sinha @ Harindra Prasad Sinha, son of Late Banshi Lal Sah, R/o Mohalla- Durge Colony, Khagri Road, Danapur, PO- Digha, P.S.- Danapur, District- Patna.

...petitioner ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The Union of India through the Chairman, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.

2.

The Chairman, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi. 3.

The General Manager, N.F. Railway, Maligaon, Guwahati. 4.

The General Manager (P). N.F. Railway, Maligaon, Guwahati. 5.

The Divisional Railway Manager, N.F. Railway, Katihar. 6.

The Divisional Railway Manager (P) N.F. Railway, Katihar. 7.

The A.P.O./Gaz. N.F. Railway, Guwahati.

8.

The A.P.O./II N.F. Railway, Katihar 9.

The Sr. Divisional Operating Manager, N.F. Railway, Katihar.

10. Shri Amar Kumar Das, posted as Station Manager, Old Malda, at Present posted at Katihar, through the DRM, N.F. Railway, Katihar. ... Respondents ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sujeet Kumar Gupta, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN) 19-12-2018 Though a prayer for accommodation is made but considering that this Bench is specially constituted for consideration of the tied-up matters, we are not persuaded to grant indulgence specially where we are satisfied that the issue raised in the civil review application does not warrant indulgence.

This application is filed for review of the judgment

Patna High Court C. REV. No.95 of 2018(4) dt.19-12-2018 2/2 and order dated 05.03.2018 of the Division Bench passed in CWJC No.3752 of 2018, whereby the Division Bench taking note of the delayed action of the writ petitioner in questioning the order of the Tribunal after 8 years of its passing has refused to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

That the writ petition has been dismissed taking note of the laches and delay on the part of the writ petitioner who has chosen to question the order dated 28.09.2010 of the Central Administrative Tribunal passed in O.A. No.804 of 2004 after 8 years, we are satisfied to record that the opinion expressed by the Division Bench to dismiss the writ petition requires no review. The petitioner, if so aggrieved, has his remedy and if so advised, he may take recourse thereto.

The review application is dismissed.

(Jyoti Saran, J) ( Nilu Agrawal, J) skpathak/- U