Dismissed

Smt Pinki Devi v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC2 May 2018WPC/2419/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the dismissal of a confiscation appeal as barred by limitation. The Court held that no illegality existed in dismissing the appeal due to the absence of a condonation petition and dismissed the writ application while granting liberty to file a fresh appeal. Quality is thin.

What did the court decide?

Writ application dismissed with liberty to file a fresh appeal along with a limitation application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Smt Pinki Devi Vs The State Of Jharkhand… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 2419 of 2017

¶3

Smt. Pinki Devi, wife of late Rakesh Kumar, Resident of Old Jain Road, P.O.& P.S. Nawada, District-Nawada(Bihar). ….. Petitioner

¶4

-V e r s u s-

¶5

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶6

2.The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority, Hazaribagh, P.S.-Sadar, P.O. & District-Hazaribagh

¶7

3.The Authorised Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, East Forest Division, Hazaribagh, P.S.-Sadar, P.O. & District-Hazaribagh

¶8

….. Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN For the Petitioner : Mr. P.K.Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents : J.C. to G.A

¶10

4/02.05.2018 In this writ application the petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.02.2017 by which the confiscation appeal of the petitioner being Confiscation Appeal No. 01 of 2017 was dismissed on the ground that the same is barred by limitation.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh could not have dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on the ground of limitation rather should have granted some time to the petitioner to file a limitation petition.

¶12

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that admittedly an appeal was filed beyond of the period of limitation and it is also admitted that there was no petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying to condone the delay. That being the position, it is submitted that the learned court had no other alternative that to dismissed the petition.

¶13

After hearing the parties, I find that there is no illegality in the impugned order. Admittedly the appeal was beyond the period of limitation. Admittedly there was no petition filed by the petitioner praying to condone the delay in terms of the Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

¶14

In that view, I find no illegality in the impugned order and the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh was well within its jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal as barred by limitation. Thus, I find no reason to interfere in this writ application.

¶15

Since the appeal was dismissed on a technical ground, the petitioner if files a fresh appeal along with limitation application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, explaining the delay the same can be considered as per law.

¶16

This application is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty.

¶17

(Ananda Sen, J.)

¶18

Amar/cp2

Smt Pinki Devi v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Pinki Devi v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kuldip Singh Bhokta Alias Kuldeep Singh Bhokta Alias Deepak Jee Alias Latan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Binod Singh Alias Laxmi Narayan Singh Alias Dighu Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Jakir Hussain Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sakil Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manoj Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Md Abu Sale Alias Md Abu Saleh Alias Sameer Vs The State Of Jharkhand