Dismissed¶48

The State Of Bihar and Anr. v. Ramakant Choudhary

Patna HC1 May 2024L.P.A/1689/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court; delay condonation refused; limitation petition rejected; 439-day delay; no dates and events of file movement; belated litigation; Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley 2024 SCC OnLine SC 551; State of Bihar; Bihar Hindi Granth Academy; C.W.J.C. Nos. 18954 of 2016, 8102 of 2017, 19025 of 2016; L.P.A. Nos. 1688, 1689, 1690 of 2018; I.A. Nos. 9024, 9022, 9021 of 2018; appeals dismissed; oral judgment dated 01-05-2024; NAFR.

What did the court decide?

Sufficient cause was not shown for the delay of about 439 days: the explanation amounted to mere movement of the file, with no dates or events of file movement, and therefore showed a dearth of reasons to condone the delay. ¶46

The State Of Bihar and Anr. Vs Ramakant Choudhary — Patna HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether sufficient cause was shown to condone the delay of about 439 days in preferring L.P.A. Nos. 1688, 1689 and 1690 of 2018 (limitation petitions I.A. Nos. 9024, 9022 and 9021 of 2018). +1 more

¶46

Court's answer

¶46

Ratio / Principle

Taking note of the recent Supreme Court decision in Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 551 (paras 10 to 14 dealing with rejection of belated litigation), the delay-condonation applications I.A. Nos. 9024, 9022 and 9021 of 2018 were rejected, and consequently L.P.A. Nos. 1688, 1689 and 1690 of 2018 stood dismissed.

¶48

Key takeaways

Identical disposal was recorded for the companion matters: I.A. No. 9022 of 2018 in L.P.A. No. 1689 of 2018 and I.A. No. 9021 of 2018 in L.P.A. No. 1690 of 2018 were each rejected, with the corresponding appeal dismissed.ratio¶73

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 1688, 1689 and 1690 of 2018 (State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, HRD Department and Director cum Chairman, Bihar Hindi Granth Academy v. Yogendra Prasad / Ramakant Choudhary / Ashok Kumar Sinha): limitation petitions (I.A. Nos. 9024, 9022 and 9021 of 2018) seeking condonation of about 439 days' delay in challenging the writ orders dated 11.08.2017 in C.W.J.C. Nos. 18954 of 2016, 8102 of 2017 and 19025 of 2016 were rejected. Sufficient cause was not found: the explanation recited only inter-departmental file movement (Administrative Department to Law Department to Advocate General to Government Advocate No. 12) with no dates or events, showing a dearth of reasons; the Court took note of the Supreme Court decision in Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 551, paras 10 to 14 whereof deal with rejection of belated litigation. Consequently, all three Letters Patent Appeals stand dismissed. Oral judgment delivered per P. B. Bajanthri J; coram also comprising Alok Kumar Pandey J. NAFR.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1688 of 2018 In

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18954 of 2016

¶3

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

¶4

The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶5

The Director cum Chairman, Bihar, Hindi Granth Academy, Prem Chand Marg, P.S. Sultanganj, Rajendra Nagar, Patna.

¶6

... ... Appellant/s

¶7

Versus

¶8

Yogendra Prasad son of Late Adiya Prasad resident of Mohalla Bhagwan Road, Mithapur, P.S.- Jakkanpur, District - Patna- 1.

¶9

... ... Respondent/s

¶10

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

¶11

with Letters Patent Appeal No. 1689 of 2018 In

¶12

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8102 of 2017

¶13

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

¶14

The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶15

The Director cum Chairman, Bihar, Hindi Granth Academy, Prem Chand Marg, P.S. Sultanganj, Rajendra Nagar, Patna.

¶16

... ... Appellant/s

¶17

Versus

¶18

Ramakant Choudhary, son of Late Mohan Choudhary Resident of Village Fathepur, P.S. - Didarganj, District - Patna.

¶19

... ... Respondent/s

¶20

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

¶21

with

¶22

Letters Patent Appeal No. 1690 of 2018

¶23

¶24

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19025 of 2016

¶25

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

¶26

The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶27

The Director cum Chairman, Bihar, Hindi Granth Academy, Prem Chand Marg, P.S.- Sultanganj, Rajendra Nagar, Patna.

¶28

... ... Appellant/s

¶29

Versus

¶30

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1688 of 2018 dt.01-05-2024 2/6

¶31

Ashok Kumar Sinha Son of Late Maheshwar Dayal Resident of House No. 35, Muhalla-Hanuman Nagar, New Punaichak, Patna- 23.

¶32

... ... Respondent/s

¶33

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

¶54

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

¶55

¶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

¶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

¶66

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

¶67

¶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

¶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. Ramakant Choudhary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State Of Bihar and Anr. v. Ramakant Choudhary

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 Yogendra Prasad

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