Umakant v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1363 of 2019 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.25055 of 2013 ====================================================== Umakant Son of Late Shyam Narayan Sharma Resident of Village and PostPariyari, P.S.- Kinjar, District- Arwal, At present- R/o Flat No. 303, Akanchha Punam Palace, Saubhagya Sharma Path, P.O.- Veterinary College, Rukunpura, Patna.

... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary Government of Bihar Patna. 2.

The Secretary Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, at Patna. 3.

The District Magistrate Arwal.

4.

D.C.L.R., Arwal.

5.

Circle Officer Karpi, District - Arwal.

6.

Executive Engineer Rural Works Department, Arwal. 7.

IRCON International Limited through its Chairman/Managing Director. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Diwakar Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. P.K.Shahi, AG ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 04-09-2024 The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appeal is filed since his party had not instructed for withdrawal of the appeal.

2. In fact, we see that the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant before the learned Single Judge sought for withdrawal of the appeal specifically expressing the view that disputed and complicated questions of facts and law are involved, which would require to be adjudicated by an

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1363 of 2019(7) dt.04-09-2024 2/2 appropriate Civil Court having competent jurisdiction. The learned Counsel also sought for liberty to seek compensation, if a declaration is obtained in his favour. The learned Single Judge allowed both the declarations.

3. We were unhappy by the manner in which the appeal was filed by changing the Counsel. We were of the opinion that the learned Counsel had expressed his view as an Officer of the Court and we find absolutely no reason for him to have obtained further instruction from the writ petitioner.

4. The learned Counsel then, sought for withdrawal of the appeal. We directed an affidavit to be filed by the appellant, however, the learned Counsel informed us that the appellant is present in person in Court. Since the appellant was present in Court, we specifically asked him to get the consent of the appellant and on his consent, permission was sought to withdraw the appeal.

5. The appeal is permitted to be withdrawn with liberty as reserved by the learned Single Judge. (K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) (Partha Sarthy, J) Shiv/- U