Mamta Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No. 725 of 2022 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.663 of 2013 ====================================================== Mamta Kumari Son of Shri Raju Das, Resident of Village Fulwariya, P.O. Fesus, Panchayat Sadpur, P.S.-Garkha, District-Saran, Chhapra. ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Secretary Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Collector Saran at Chhapra.

3.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Chhapra, District Saran. 4.

The Block Development Officer, Garkha Block, District Saran. 5.

The Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj Sadhpur Block Garkha, District Saran. 6.

The Panchayat Secretary, Gram panchayat Raj Sadhpur, Block Garkha, District Saran.

7.

Ashok Kumar son of Shivjee Sah, resident of Village Sadhpur, P.S. Garkha, District Saran, The Mukhiya (2001-2006) Gram Panchayat Raj Sadpur, Block Garkha, District Saran.

8.

Raja Ram Harijan, son of not known to the petitioner, the then Panchayat Secretary (2001-2006) Gram Panchayat Raj Sadipur, Block Garkha, District Saran at present posted at Manjhi Block, District Saran. 9.

Smt. Rina Devi, Wife of Hiralal Das, resident of Village Fulwariya, P.O. Ferusa, Panchayat Sadhpur, Police Station Garkha, District Saran. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant :

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha (GA-7) :

Mr. Abhinav Ashok, AC to GA-7 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI) 03-04-2025 Re: I.A. No. 1 of 2022 Heard I.A. No. 1 of 2022, there is a delay of about nine years in filing L.P.A. No. 725 of 2022 insofar as

Patna High Court L.P.A No. 725 of 2022(3) dt.03-04-2025 2/2 challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 14.01.2013. The reason assigned is only to the extent that Advocate on Record did not inform the appellant. The appellant also owes her duty to verify the stage of her case from time to time from the concerned Advocate. Be that as it may. There is a delay of about nine years in filing L.P.A. No. 725 of 2022.

2. Accordingly, delay application i.e., I.A. No. 1 of 2022 stands dismissed.

3. Resultantly, the L.P.A. No. 725 of 2022 stands dismissed.

(P. B. Bajanthri, J) ( Alok Kumar Sinha, J) GK Sinha/- U