Ram Babu v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1726 of 2017 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21445 of 2013 ====================================================== Ram Babu, son of Sri Ram Nawmi Ram, Resident of Village- Dighwalia, Post Office- Dighwalia, Police Station- Raghunathpur, District- Siwan, at present posted on the post of Senior Deputy Collector, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif, Police Station- Biharsharif, District- Nalanda.

... ... Appellant

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.

The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4.

The Principal Secretary, Apada Prabandhan (Disaster Management) Bibhag, Bihar, Patna.

5.

The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

6.

The Under Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

7.

The Joint Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

8.

The Deputy Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

9.

The Divisional Commissioner, Darbhanga.

10.

The Departmental Enquiry Commissioner, General Administration Department, Bihar, Patna.

11.

The District Magistrate, Madhubani, District- Madhubani. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Siya Ram Shahi, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. P K.Verma -AAG-3 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) 5.

08-01-2020 Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as learned counsel appearing for the State.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1726 of 2017(5) dt.08-01-2020 2/2 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant filed writ petition on several grounds, but the learned Single Judge confined him towards only one ground and as a matter of fact, the appellant had raised several other points before the learned Single Judge, but the aforesaid points were not considered by the learned Single Judge.

In view of the aforesaid submissions, in our view, the appellant ought to have preferred review petition before the learned Single Judge, because there is nothing on the record in support of contention of learned counsel for the appellant. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed.

However, the appellant may file review petition before the learned Single Judge.

(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.) ( Prabhat Kumar Singh, J.) anay U