This Letters Patent Appeal challenges the Writ Court's discretionary decision to release seized items. The bench condoned a 132-day delay and dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's order.
The Letters Patent Appeal against the release of seized material is 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 Letters Patent Appeal No.1701 of 2016
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4662 of 2016
======================================================
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
.... .... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ac To Sc5 Deepak Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Keeping in view the fact that the learned Writ Court has only exercised its discretionary jurisdiction in releasing the seized material looking to the perishable nature of the item, on furnishing sufficient security, the appeal against the discretion exercised by the learned Writ Court stands dismissed.
(Rajendra Menon, CJ)
(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J)
K.C. jha/-
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned Writ Court erred in exercising its discretionary jurisdiction to release seized material.
Whether the delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal should be condoned.
The State of Bihar
Collector, Bhagalpur
Supply Inspector, Sabour
Block Supply Officer, Sabour
Surendra Kumar Jodhani
Rajendra Menon
Anil Kumar Upadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
