The Patna High Court disposed of a writ petition filed with over a four-year delay. The Court declined to interfere due to lack of satisfactory explanation for the delay but granted liberty to approach respondents.
Liberty granted to approach respondents with representation to be considered on merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Patna High Court CWJC No.20616 of 2012 (2) dt.08-11-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20616 of 2012
======================================================
.... .... Petitioners Versus
.... .... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Pravin Kumar Verma, A.C. to SC-26
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER
2. This Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter, moreso when the petitioner has failed to adequately and satisfactorily explain the reason for the delay.
3. In any event, liberty may be granted to the petitioner to approach the concerned respondents with representation, if so advised which may be considered in the authorities’ discretion on its own merits and in the light
Patna High Court CWJC No.20616 of 2012 (2) dt.08-11-2012
of the settled principles discussed in The Secretary of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi and Ors. (2006) 1 SCC 1 .
4. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Fahad.
( Vikash Jain, J. )
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Court should interfere in the writ petition considering the petitioner's delay of over 4 years in approaching the Court without satisfactory explanation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Secretary of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi and Ors.Referred¶23
Secretary of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi and Ors. (2006) 1 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Shailendra Kumar
Md. Jafar Imam
The State Of Bihar
Chief Secretary, Government Of Bihar
Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, Government Of Bihar
Commissioner- Cum- Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department, Government Of Bihar
Vikash Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
