The Patna High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging a public interest litigation order that directed the Commissioner, Patna Division, to examine the petitioner's claim under Section 18(5) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006.
null
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.89 of 2016
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9546 of 2015
====================================================== Dilip Paswan @ Dilip Kumar .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uday Bhanu Rai, Advocate Mr. Binit Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
3 09-09-2016
This review petition has been preferred against the order, dated 08.12.2015, passed in C.W.J.C.No. 9546 of 2015, whereby this Court, having regard to the facts of the case and the law relevant thereto, passed the order, which reads as follows: -
“Considering, therefore, the matter in entirety and in the interest of justice, respondent No.10, namely, the Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna, is hereby directed to examine the claim of the petitioner in the light of provisions of Section 18(5) of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, assigning reason(s) for the decision(s), he may arrive at or reach. A copy of this order, which may be made, in writing, by respondent No. 10, namely, the Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna, be served on the petitioner.
The whole exercise, as directed above, shall
Patna High Court C. REV. No.89 of 2016 (3) dt.09-09-2016
2
be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order by the petitioner.
If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the order(s), which may be passed, and/or the decision(s), which may be taken by the respondent No.10, namely, the Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna, he may take recourse to such provisions of law as may be permissible.
With the above observations and directions, this Public Interest Litigation stands disposed of.”
Heard Mr. Uday Bhanu Roy, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Having perused the order impugned, we do not find that the order, under review, is sustainable in law as we have already directed the Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna, to pass appropriate order in the light of provisions of Section 18(5) of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006.
In view of the above, this revision petition is dismissed.
(I.A. Ansari,CJ)
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)
A.I./U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order in C.W.J.C. No. 9546 of 2015 is sustainable in law.
Whether the Commissioner, Patna Division should be directed to examine the claim under Section 18(5) of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dilip Paswan @ Dilip Kumar
The State of Bihar
Chief Justice
Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
