The Patna High Court in a civil review petition primarily condoned a 46-day delay. On merits, it dismissed the review, holding allegations of mala fide were not properly impleaded and earlier order correctly recorded a disagreement note per law.
Interlocutory Application and the current Civil Review Petition are dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Review No.319 of 2016
Arising out of Letters Patent Appeal No. 2189 of 2015 Arising out of
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17994 of 2012
=========================================================== Ashok Kumar Singh, Executive Engineer, son of Sri Ram Ekbal Singh, resident of Pachlak, P.S. Parsa Chapra, District-Chapra (Saran).
.... ....Petitioner-Respondent-Review Petitioner Versus
| ... | . .... Respondents- Appellants-Opposite parties. | |
|---|---|---|
| =================== | ====== | ================================== |
| Appearance : | ||
| For the Petitioner/s | : | Mr. Ajet Kumar, Advocate Mr. Shardendu Kumar, Advocate |
| For the Respondent/s =================== |
: ====== |
Mr. Raghwanand, G.A.-11 Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, A.C. to G.A.-11 ================================== |
| CORAM: HONOURAB And |
LE MR. | JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA |
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA)
Date: 25-10-2016
Re.: Interlocutory Application No.4951 of 2016
The application is for condonation of delay of 46 days in filing of the present Civil Review Petition.
Patna High Court C. REV. No.319 of 2016 dt.25-10-2016
2/4
Re.: Civil Review No.319 of 2016
The present is an application for review of the order passed by this Court on 6th April, 2016 whereby the Letters Patent Appeal was allowed and the order passed by the learned Single Bench was set aside and the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority was restored.
Patna High Court C. REV. No.319 of 2016 dt.25-10-2016
3/4
Patna High Court C. REV. No.319 of 2016 dt.25-10-2016
4/4
considered in paragraph 7 of the order wherein it has been recorded that disagreement note was recorded and communicated. That is the mandate of law in Kunj Behari Misra’s case (supra).
(Hemant Gupta, J.)
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)
Sunil/-
| AFR/NAFR | N. A. F. R. |
|---|---|
| CAVDATE | N.A. |
| UploadingDate | 27.10.2016 |
| Transmission Date |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether delay of 46 days in filing civil review petition is condonable.
Whether finding of no bias or mala fide in impugned order is erroneous given allegations in interlocutory application.
Whether impugned order violates dictum of Punjab National Bank versus Kunj Behari Misra by failing to record disagreement note after exoneration.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Punjab National Bank Vs. Kunj Behari MisraReferred¶2
Punjab National Bank Vs. Kunj Behari Misra, (1998) 7 SCC 84 · Who else cites this
Ashok Kumar Singh
The State of Bihar
Hemant Gupta
Ahsanuddin Amanullah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
