Partly allowed

Hiranmay Gupta v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC18 Apr 2013CWJC/6543/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Court corrected a typographical error in an earlier order (18.04.2013). The name of the Collector was erroneously listed as Vaishali instead of Rohtas, and the refund amount was wrongly typed as Rs. 12,616/- instead of Rs. 1,26,136/-. The order was modified accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 18.04.2013 was modified to read 'Collector, Rohtas' instead of 'Collector, Vaishali' and correct the refund amount to Rs. 1,26,136/-.

Hiranmay Gupta Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6543 of 2013

¶2

====================================================== Hiranmay Gupta Son Of Late Mathura Prasad Gupta Resident Of Village - Gorhi Tola (Durgapur), P.S. - Katihar Town, District - Katihar, Presently Residing At C/O Sri Rajneesh Pathak, House No. 17, Mohalla - Bank Colony (Faizalganj), P.S. - Sasaram Town, District - Rohtas At Sasaram

¶3

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶4

Versus 1. The State Of Bihar

¶5

The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna

¶6

The District Magistrate, Rohtas At Sasaram

¶7

The Treasury Officer, Rohtas At Sasaram .

¶8

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶9

3 22-01-2014 This case has been listed at the instance of learned

¶10

counsel for the petitioner, who has pointed out that the Collector, Vaishali mentioned in the various pages of the earlier order dated 18.04.2013 ought to have been Collector, Rohtas.

¶11

As a matter of fact, it seems to be a typographical error , inasmuch as, it is only the Collector of Rohtas district who was party to this writ application and in fact he has to do the needful as directed in the aforesaid order and therefore, wherever Collector, Vaishali has been mentioned in the order, the same being typographical error shall be read as Collector, Rohtas.

¶12

As with regard to the typographical error in the chart at

¶13

Patna High Court CWJC No.6543 of 2013 (3) dt.22-01-2014

¶14

¶15

page-3, learned counsel has pointed out that against the name of the petitioner, the amount to be refunded has been wrongly typed as Rs. 12,616/- which ought to have been Rs. 1,26,136/. Learned counsel for the petitioner is again correct because from Annexure-1 which has been reproduced, it would appear that the petitioner no. 3 (petitioner) was held to be entitled for refund of Rs. 1,26,136/-.

¶16

Thus, the order of this Court dated 18.4.2013 would

¶17

modified to the aforementioned extent.

¶18

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J)

¶19

Ranjan/-

Hiranmay Gupta v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hiranmay Gupta v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

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

Vinod Kumar Yadav and Ors. Vs Bihar Staff Selection Commissi

Kumari Nilam Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Ramawtar Purbey Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Mumukshu Kumar Chaudhary Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Khushbu Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Jitendra Jha Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.