Bindeshwari Sao v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17891 of 2017 ====================================================== Bindeshwari Sao Son of late Jagarnath Sao Resident of Mohalla- Vidyapith Chowk Lakhisarai, P.O. and P.S. Lakhisarai, District- Lakhisarai. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State Of Bihar.
2.
The Divisional Commissioner, Munger Division, Munger. 3.
The District Magistrate, Lakhisarai.
4.
The Sub Divisional Officer, Lakhisarai.
5.
The Executive Magistrate, Lakhisarai.
6.
The Assistant District Supply Officer, Lakhisarai. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Dineshwar Prasad Singh For the Respondent/s :
Mr. S.Raza Ahmad -AAG-5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 21-12-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
Petitioner has approached this Court after exhausting the remedy of revision, the revisional authority Commissioner, Munger Division has passed the following order: ^^jkT; dh vksj ls fo"ks'k yksd vfHk;kstd dk dFku gS fd iqujh{k.kdrkZ }kjk le; ij nqdku ugha [kksyus] vuqKfIr/kkjh dk O;ogkj miHkksDrk ds izfr vPNk ugha jgus] vf/kd dher ysdj de ek=k eas [kk|kUu nsuk ,oa tkyh izo`f'V dj [kk|kUu dk dkykcktkjh djus ds vkjksi esa vuqKfIr dks jn~n fd;k x;k gS tks mfpr gSA iqujh{k.k vfHkys[k ,oa fuEu U;k;ky; vfHkys[k esa miyC/k dkxtkrksa dk voyksdu fd;kA fuEu U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns"k dk voyksdu fd;kA fuEu U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns"k esa mfYyf[kr gS fd iqujh{k.kdrkZ ds fo:) yxk;s x;s vkjksi ij dk;Zikyd inkf/kdkjh]
Patna High Court CWJC No.17891 of 2017(3) dt.21-12-2019 2/3 y[khljk; ls tkWap djk;k x;k ftlesa fuEuor~ vkjksi izfrosfnr gS %& 1- fodzsrk }kjk fcuk iwoZ lwpuk ds fu/kZfjr le; esa O;kikj LFky 1⁄4nwdku1⁄2 dks cUn j[kk x;k gS vkSj euekus <ax ls lapkyu fd;k tkrk gS] 2- miHkksDrkvksa ds jk"ku dkMZ esa tkyh izfof'V dh tkrh gS vFkkZr~ ftrus ekg dk [kk|kUu fn;k tkrk gS mlls vf/kd ekg dk izfof'V fd;k tkrk gS] 3- tu forj.k dk;Z esa vfHk:fp ugha gS] 4- miHkksDrkvksa ds lkFk vPNk O;ogkj ugha fd;k tkrk gS ,oa 5- vuqKfIr esa of.kZr drZO;ksa ,oa mRrjnkf;Roksa ds vuq:i vkpj.k ugha gSA mi;qZDr of.kZr rF;ksa ij fopkjksijkar fuEu U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad& 23-06-2015 ds ikfjr vkns"k dks ;Fkkor j[kk tkrk gSA iqujh{k.
k vLohd`rA vkns"k dh izfr ds lkFk fuEu U;k;ky; vfHkys[k dks okil HkstsaA ys[kkfir ,oa la"kksf/krA g0v0 vk;qDr eqaxsj izeaMy] eqaxsjA^^ The Commissioner exercising revisional power is not supposed to pass cryptic order like the instant. The power of revision is vested with the Commissioner with a view that he will take appropriate decision in appropriate case. From the perusal of the order dated 05.07.2017, the Court finds that there is absolutely no application of mind and there is no reason assigned for dismissing the revision.
Accordingly, the order contained Annexure-P-10 dated 05.07.2017 is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the revisional authority who is required to take fresh decision in
Patna High Court CWJC No.17891 of 2017(3) dt.21-12-2019 3/3 accordance with law.
It goes without saying that the revisional authority has to assign for passing the order while exercising the revisional jurisdiction as the reason is 3rd Principles of natural justice as held out by Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of S.N. Mukherji Vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC1984. Necessary decision afresh in this regard must be taken by the respondents Commissioner within a maximum period of 90 days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
With the aforesaid, the writ application stands disposed of.
(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) mdrashid/kamlesh U