Dismissed

Gour Singh Munda v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC12 May 2023C.Rev./128/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses an interim application seeking to condone a 78-day delay in filing a review petition. The High Court subsequently dismisses the review application itself, holding that the ground relied upon regarding the petitioner's acquittal was already considered by the appellate forum.

What did the court decide?

The interim application condoning delay is allowed. The review application is dismissed.

Gour Singh Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No. 128 of 2019

Gour Singh Munda

... … Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

¶6

2. Director General cum I.G. of Police, Jharkhand

¶7

3. Inspector General of Police, Police Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi

¶8

4. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Dhurwa Ranchi

¶9

5. Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police-VI, P.O.- Agrico, P.S.- Baridih, District- Jamshedpur ... … Respondents

¶10

---------

¶11

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶12

For the Petitioner : Dr. H. Waris, Advocate For the Respondents^: AC to GP-VI

¶13

04/12.05.2023 Defect(s) as pointed out by the office are ignored.

¶14

I.A. No. 3049 of 2023

¶15

Heard Dr. H. Waris, learned counsel for the reviewpetitioner and learned AC to GP-VI, for the respondents.

¶16

This interlocutory application has been preferred by the petitioner for condoning a delay of 78 days in filing the instant application.

¶17

Having been satisfied with the reasons assigned in the instant application, the same is allowed and the delay of 78 days in filing the review application is hereby condoned.

¶18

I.A. 3049 of 2023 stands disposed of.

¶19

Civil Review No. 128 of 2019

¶20

This review application has been preferred by the petitioner for review of the order dated 23.07.2019 passed in L.P.A. No. 169 of 2014.

¶21

The only ground which has been taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner to review the order passed in L.P.A. No. 169 of 2014 is of the petitioner being acquitted in the criminal case instituted by the complainant consequent to the passing of the final order in the departmental proceeding.

¶22

Learned AC to GP-VI, for the respondents submits that the issue which has been raised by the petitioner has already been considered by the Appellate forum.

¶23

It appears that a proceeding was instituted against the petitioner and he was subsequently dismissed from service

¶24

-2-

¶25

which triggered a writ application preferred by him being W.P.(S) No. 3784 of 2004 and on its dismissal the petitioner had preferred L.P.A. No. 169 of 2014 which also was dismissed vide order dated 23.07.2019. It appears from a perusal of the order dated 23.07.2019 that the ground on which the review has been sought for was already considered by the learned Appellate Court with respect to the acquittal of the petitioner subsequent to the conclusion of the departmental proceeding.

¶26

Since the petitioner has failed to prove any error apparent on the face of the record for review of the order dated 23.07.2019 passed in L.P.A. No. 169 of 2014, we are not inclined to entertain this review application which accordingly stands dismissed.

¶27

Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.

¶28

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶29

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶30

Alok/-

Gour Singh Munda v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gour Singh Munda v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sachin Kumar Vs Asha Roy

Rina Devi Vs Anurag Pratik

Ms the Tinplate Company of India Limited through Its Deputy Manager Namely Banku Bihari Bag Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Commercial Taxes

Priti Kumari Alias Usha Devi Vs Chandrajeet Prajapati

Ms Tata Motors Limited through Pankaj Kr Patwari Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Cum Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Ms Dhansar Engineering Co. Private Limited through Sanjay Kumar Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Department of Commercial Taxes