The State Of Bihar and Anr. Vs Yogendra Prasad

====================================================== Appearance : (In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1688 of 2018) For the Appellant/s : Mr.Abhanjalli Ac To Ga 12 Mr. Apurva Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Abhay Kumar Singh, Advocate (In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1689 of 2018) For the Appellant/s : Mr.Abhanjalli Ac To Ga 12 Mr. Apurva Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. (In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1690 of 2018) For the Appellant/s : Mr.Abhanjalli Ac To Ga 12 Mr. Apurva Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate

¶34

======================================================

¶35

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)

¶36

Date : 01-05-2024

¶37

Ref: I.A. No. 9024 of 2018 in L.P.A. 1688 of 2018

¶38

Heard Limitation Petition (I.A. No. 9024 of 2018).

¶39

There is a delay of about 439 days in preferring L.P.A. No. 1688 of 2018. The reasons assigned are as under:-

¶40

“ 4. That it is respectfully that after the receipt of the order dated 11.08.2017 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 18954 of 2016 the administrative department sought opinion from the Law Department regarding filling of letter patent appeal against the order dated 11.08.2017.

¶41

5. That therefore the Law Department pursuant to the query of the Administrative Department stated that it would be appropriate to seek the opinion of the Learned Advocate General, Bihar in this regard.

¶42

6. That thereafter the concerned file

¶43

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1688 of 2018 dt.01-05-2024 3/6

¶44

from the Law Department was received in the office of the Advocate General, Bihar.

¶45

7. That thereafter the concerned file was marked to the office of the Learned Government Advocate No. 12 for the purpose of drafting the letters patent appeal I.A. petition for condoning limitation and challenging the order dated 11.08.2017 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 18954 of 2016.”

¶46

Sufficient cause has not been shown so as to condoned enormous delay of 439 days. What has been stated is the movement of the file insofar as filing L.P.A. Further, it is to be noted that there are no dates and events as to the movement of the file. Therefore, there is a dearth of reasons so as to condone the delay of 439 days.

¶47

3. Taking note of recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 551. Para 10 to 14 of the same deals with rejection of belated litigation.

¶48

4. Accordingly, taking note of the cited decision, the present I.A. No. 9024 of 2018 stands rejected, consequently, L.P.A. No. 1688 of 2018 stands dismissed.

¶49

Ref: I.A. No. 9022 of 2018 in L.P.A. No. 1689 of 2018

¶50

Heard I.A. No. 9022 of 2018. There is a delay of about 439 days in preferring L.P.A. No. 1689 of 2018. The reasons assigned are as under:-

¶51

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1688 of 2018 dt.01-05-2024 4/6

¶52

“ 4. That it is respectfully that after the receipt of the order dated 11.08.2017 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8102 of 2017 the administrative department sought opinion from the Law Department regarding filling of letter patent appeal against the order dated 11.08.2017.

¶53

5. That therefore the Law Department pursuant to the query of the Administrative Department stated that it would be appropriate to seek the opinion of the Learned Advocate General, Bihar in this regard.

¶54

6. That thereafter the concerned file from the Law Department was received in the office of the Advocate General, Bihar.

¶55

7. That thereafter the concerned file was marked to the office of the Learned Government Advocate No. 12 for the purpose of drafting the letters patent appeal I.A. petition for condoning limitation and challenging the order dated 11.08.2017 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8102 of 2017.”

¶56

Sufficient cause has not been shown so as to

¶57

condoned enormous delay of 439 days. What has been stated is the movement of the file insofar as filing L.P.A. Further, it is to be noted that there are no dates and events as to the movement of the file. Therefore, there is a dearth of reasons so as to condone the delay of 439 days.

¶58

3. Taking note of recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 551. Para 10 to 14 of the same deals with rejection of belated litigation.

¶59

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1688 of 2018 dt.01-05-2024 5/6

¶60

4. Accordingly, taking note of the cited decision, the present I.A. No. 9022 of 2018 stands rejected, consequently, L.P.A. No. 1689 of 2018 stands dismissed.

¶61

Ref: I.A. No. 9021 of 2018 in L.P.A. No. 1690 of 2018

¶62

Heard I.A. No. 9021 of 2018. There is a delay of

¶63

about 439 days in preferring L.P.A. No. 1690 of 2018. The reasons assigned are as under:-

¶64

“ 4. That it is respectfully that after the receipt of the order dated 11.08.2017 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 19025 of 2016 the administrative department sought opinion from the Law Department regarding filling of letter patent appeal against the order dated 11.08.2017.

¶65

5. That therefore the Law Department pursuant to the query of the Administrative Department stated that it would be appropriate to seek the opinion of the Learned Advocate General, Bihar in this regard.

¶66

6. That thereafter the concerned file from the Law Department was received in the office of the Advocate General, Bihar.

¶67

7. That thereafter the concerned file was marked to the office of the Learned Government Advocate No. 12 for the purpose of drafting the letters patent appeal I.A. petition for condoning limitation and challenging the order dated 11.08.2017 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 19025 of 2016.”

¶68

Sufficient cause has not been shown so as to

¶69

condoned enormous delay of 439 days. What has been stated is the movement of the file insofar as filing L.P.A. Further, it is to

¶70

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1688 of 2018 dt.01-05-2024 6/6

¶71

be noted that there are no dates and events as to the movement of the file. Therefore, there is a dearth of reasons so as to condone the delay of 439 days.

¶72

3. Taking note of recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 551. Para 10 to 14 of the same deals with rejection of belated litigation.

¶73

Accordingly, taking note of the cited decision, the present I.A. No. 9021 of 2018 stands rejected, consequently, L.P.A. No. 1690 of 2018 stands dismissed.

¶74

(P. B. Bajanthri, J)

¶75

( Alok Kumar Pandey, J)

¶76

manish/-

¶77

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	06.05.2024
Transmission Date	N.A

The State Of Bihar and Anr. v. Yogendra Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State Of Bihar and Anr. v. Yogendra Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Sanjivan Roy, Vs The Union Of India

Dusyant Kumar and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Arjun Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

The State Of Bihar and Anr. Vs Ramakant Choudhary

Fulwati Devi Vs The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Dept. of Home, Govt. of Bihar New Secretariat

The Managing Director, Vs M/S Jai Bhawani Enterprises