Petitioner filed a modification application to extend time for removing a railway labour camp, arguing loss during the maintenance period. The bench dismissed the application, holding the earlier order called for no interference.
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
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3632 of 2018 IN
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17379 of 2018
=========================================================== Bhanu Pratap Shukla son of Sri Madhu Mandal Sukla, resident of villageSahebpara behind Railway, quarter no. 842, P.S. Sahayak District-Katihar.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
.... .... Respondent/s
=========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Jha, Adv. Mr. Bhola Prasad, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Adv. Mr. Yash Mathur, Adv. Ms. Nisha Kumari, Adv. ===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 19-09-2018
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the Railways.
Petitioner seeks modification of the order dated 29.08.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 17379 of 2018 wherein the
Patna High Court MJC No.3632 of 2018 dt.19-09-2018
2/3
petitioner who was awarded contract by the Railways and had erected the labour camp, after completion of work was directed by the Railway authorities to remove the labour camp by 31.08.2018 which had been challenged in the writ application. While disposing of the writ application, it was observed that since conservancy charges have been taken from the petitioner for the period 30.06.2017 to 25.09.2018, the petitioner would be allowed to continue till 25.09.2018. Apart from that, the order of the Railways for removing the labour camp was not interfered with. Petitioner pleads that since the maintenance guarantee period for the work would expire on 10.01.2019 and if the petitioner is ousted from the said land he would suffer great loss and in the alternative, prays even one month time be extended from 25.09.2018 to remove the labour camp.
However, learned counsel for the Railways submits that the petitioner has preferred a Letters Patent Appeal against the said order and has also prayed for stay of the said order and now a modification petition has been filed indulging in multiplicity of applications.
Considering the submissions of both the parties, the order dated 29.08.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 17379 of 2018 calls for no interference.
Patna High Court MJC No.3632 of 2018 dt.19-09-2018
3/3
Modification application is dismissed.
(Nilu Agrawal, J)
Devendra/Priyanka
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | NA |
| UploadingDate | 20.09.2018 |
| Transmission Date |
NA |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an application seeking modification of an earlier order directed to the Railways inviting reconsideration calls for interference.
Bhanu Pratap Shukla
The Union of India through the Secretary Railway
Divisional Railway Manager
DEN/IV/KTR
The General Manager, Maligaon
Sr. Section Engineer/Works/West
Nilu Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
