Dismissed

The Secretary State Technical v. Kant Lal Coudhary and Ors.

Patna HC3 Sept 2012L.P.A/305/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed an interlocutory application seeking condonation of delay in filing a Letters Patent Appeal. The court held that lack of implementation of an earlier order by the petitioner did not constitute a sufficient cause for the appellants to file the appeal late, citing their failure to challenge the order promptly as contemptuous.

What the court decided

AI extract

The Secretary State Technical Vs Kant Lal Coudhary… — Writ and Judicial Review | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No. 305 of 2012 In

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 156 of 2010 With Interlocutory Application No. 1780 of 2012 With Interlocutory Application No. 1781 of 2012 In

¶3

Letters Patent Appeal No. 305 of 2012.

¶4

======================================================

¶5

The Secretary, State Technical Education Board, Science and Technology Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

¶6

The Controller of Examination, State Board of Technical Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

¶7

.... .... Appellants (Respondents)

¶8

Versus

¶9

Kant Lal Coudhary, Son of Sri Muni Lal Choudhary, Resident of Village Dhouni, P.S. Rajoun, District – Banka ……. Respondent (Petitioner)

¶10

The State of Bihar

¶11

The Secretary, Science & Technology Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

¶12

The Principal, Govt. Polytechnic, Bhagalpur

¶13

.... .... Respondents (Respondents.) ====================================================== Appearance: For the Appellants : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate.

¶14

For the Respondents : Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal, SC 24 and Mr. Bipin Kumar, AC to SC 24. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶15

and

¶16

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

¶17

ORAL ORDER

¶18

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶19

12 03-09-2012 Re. Interlocutory Application No. 1780 of 2012.

¶20

This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed by the appellants-State Technical Education Board

¶21

Patna High Court LPA No.305 of 2012 (12) dt.03-09-2012

¶22

2 / 3

¶23

and another for condonation of delay of 1 year and 115 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal.

¶24

As we did not find satisfactory cause for the delay, the appellants have made supplementary affidavits on 15^th May 2012, 4^th July 2012 and 29^th August 2012 in support of the application.

¶25

We are at pains to note that the application supported by the affidavits does not make out sufficient cause for the delay. The only contention raised in the application and the supporting affidavits is that pursuant to the impugned order dated 30^th August 2010, the writ petitioner did not make application before the Board as directed by the learned single Judge or did not seek implementation of the order until 7^th September 2011 (for 13 months).

¶26

This does not explain the delay. The appellants have not made out a case why the appellants could not file the Appeal within the period of limitation; nor the appellants have disclosed the date on which they received the copy of the order of this Court. The appellants are tacitly silent about their action or inaction until 7^th September 2011, the date of which the writ petitioner approached for implementation of the order.

¶27

Learned advocate Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh has appeared for the appellants. He concedes that the certified copy of the impugned order was obtained immediately and was sent to the appellants. The appellants had also received the same. Nevertheless, there is no explanation whatsoever why the appellants had not taken action on receipt of the certified copy of the order.

¶28

The application and the affidavits disclose one and

¶29

Patna High Court LPA No.305 of 2012 (12) dt.03-09-2012

¶30

3 / 3

¶31

only one fact that the appellants or their officers have not bothered to read the order of the Court until the petitioner approached for implementation of the same. It further discloses a very sorry state of affairs on the part of the State Government or the instrumentalities of the State not to read the orders of the Court as and when received. It also discloses scant respect for the orders of the Court. The behaviour of the appellants, in our opinion, in not reading the orders of the Court or in not implementing the same or in not challenging the same, if required, is contemptuous.

¶32

We are convinced that the appellants had no cause for not filing the Appeal within the period of limitation. The application is, therefore, rejected.

¶33

In view of the above order, the Appeal stands

¶34

dismissed as time-barred.

¶35

Interlocutory Application No. 1781 of 2012 stands disposed of.

¶36

(R.M. Doshit, CJ)

¶37

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

¶38

Dilip.

The Secretary State Technical v. Kant Lal Coudhary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

The Secretary State Technical v. Kant Lal Coudhary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Dwarika Prasad Agrawal

Krishna Niketan Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna Central School,Vidyapuri Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Kameshwar Prasad Singh Vs the Patna University and Ors.

The State of Bihar and Ors. Vs Phanindra Nath Pandey

Rajiv Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.