Yugal Kishor Prasad, v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL REVIEW No.422 of 2019 In Letters Patent Appeal No.1176 of 2013 ====================================================== Yugal Kishor Prasad, Gender - Male, Aged about 64 years, Son of Late Kanhaiya Lal, Resident Of Muhalla- Fidar Bazar, P.S.- Bagwan Bazar, District- Saran At Chapra ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Old Secretariat, Patna.

2.

The District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra, District- Saran at Chapra. 3.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Chapra, District- Saran at Chapra. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajeev Kumar Labh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Bijoy Kr. Sinha, AC to AAG V ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI) 04-07-2023 Heard learned counsels for the respective parties.

2. The present review application is filed to recall the order dated 12.01.2017 passed in LPA No. 1176 of 2013. There is a delay of about 2 years 10 months and 4 days in filing C. Rev. No. 422 of 2019. Reasons for condonation of delay assigned in paragraph No. 4 of the I.A. No. 1 of 2019 reads as under:

"4. That the petitioner humbly submits that when the petitioner know about this impugned order, he immediately rushed and approached his

Patna High Court C. REV. No.422 of 2019(4) dt.04-07-2023 2/2 lawyer and due to some financial hardship and due to this reason this Review application has been filed with some delay."

3. Sufficient cause has not been shown so as to condone the enormous delay of 2 years 10 months and 4 days. It is very vaguely submitted that "when petitioner came to know about the impugned order (LPA order), thereafter, he has rushed and approached his lawyer and due to financial hardship." He has not stated as to on what date he was in receipt of LPA order and further he approached his lawyer etc. Therefore, reasons assigned for condonation of delay can not be accepted.

4. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2019 for condonation of delay of 2 years 10 months and 4 days stands rejected. Consequently, C. Rev. No. 422 of 2019 stands rejected. (P. B. Bajanthri, J) ( Jitendra Kumar, J) GAURAV S./- U