Disposed¶31

Rekha Kumari v. The State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC1 Mar 2024L.P.A/357/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court L.P.A No.357 of 2019 dt.01-03-2024; Rekha Kumari v. State of Bihar; condonation of delay 322 days; I.A. No. 2 of 2023 allowed; no notice issued to Respondent No. 7 in CWJC No. 10705 of 2013; ex parte writ order; civil review petition preferred over LPA; Section 14 Limitation Act 1963; social welfare / ICDS writ matter.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay of 322 days granted (I.A. No. 2 of 2023 allowed); LPA disposed of with liberty to the appellant to file a civil review petition before the learned Single Judge, any delay therein to be considered with reference to the pendency of the LPA read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. ¶31

Rekha Kumari Vs The State of Bihar and Ors. — Patna HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 322 days in filing Letters Patent Appeal No. 357 of 2019 should be condoned (I.A. No. 2 of 2023). +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

For the reasons stated in the application and affidavit, and given that no notice was issued to the appellant in the writ petition and she was not heard, I.A. No. 2 of 2023 seeking condonation of the 322-day delay in filing the LPA is allowed.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

On perusal of the complete order sheet of CWJC No. 10705 of 2013 produced with the supplementary affidavit, it is evident that no notice was issued to the appellant, who was Respondent No. 7 in that writ petition.

¶28

Key takeaways

In fairness, the appellant ought to have invoked the remedy of filing a civil review petition instead of filing the present LPA.ratio¶30
The present LPA No. 357 of 2019 stands disposed of, with liberty reserved to the appellant to file a civil review petition before the learned Single Judge; any delay in doing so shall be taken note of with reference to the pendency of the LPA read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (P. B. Bajanthri and Alok Kumar Pandey JJ., oral judgment per Bajanthri J., 01-03-2024) disposed of Letters Patent Appeal No. 357 of 2019 filed by Rekha Kumari against the order dated 19.03.2018 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10705 of 2013. The appeal, filed 322 days late, was accompanied by I.A. No. 2 of 2023 for condonation of delay, which was allowed because the appellant asserted, and the complete order sheet later confirmed, that no notice had been issued to her though she was Respondent No. 7 in the writ petition and she had not been heard. Observing that in fairness she should have invoked a civil review petition before the learned Single Judge instead of an LPA, the Bench disposed of the appeal, reserving liberty to file such a review petition, with any delay to be taken note of with reference to the pendency of the LPA read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Pending I.A.s, if any, stood disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.357 of 2019

¶2

¶3

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10705 of 2013

¶4

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

¶5

Rekha Kumari wife of Sri Subodh Prasad @ Kumar Resident of Village - Murgiachak, Police Station - Islampur, District - Nalanda.

¶6

... ... Appellant/s

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Bihar and Ors through the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶9

The Director, Integrated Child Development Service (ICDS) Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Indra Bhawan, Patna- 800001.

¶10

The Commissioner, Patna Division Patna- 800001.

¶11

The District Magistrate cum the Collector District Collectariat at Bihar Sharif, District- Nalanda.

¶12

The District Programme Officer ICDS Office at Bihar Sharif, DistrictNalanda.

¶13

The Child Development Project Oficer Block- Islampur, District- Nalanda.

¶14

Usha Kumari wife of Sri Prakash Kumar At present resident of Village and Post Gajasarai, P.S. Islampur, District- Nalanda. Permanent Address- Sarthua Tola, Sevapuri, Post- Ginjee, Block and P.S.- Hulasganj, District- Jehanabad, PIN- 804406.

¶15

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr.Jayram Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Gyan Prakash Ojha (Ga7) Mr.Ajit Kumar, AC to GA 7

¶16

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

¶17

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and

¶18

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

¶19

Date : 01-03-2024

¶20

Re:I.A. No. 2 of 2023

¶21

Heard I.A. No. 2 of 2023 for condonation of delay of 322 days in filing LPA. For the reasons stated in application and affidavit, and the fact that in writ petition notice was not issued to

¶22

Patna High Court L.P.A No.357 of 2019 dt.01-03-2024 2/3

¶23

appellant and she has not been heard as is evident from the order sheet maintained in CWJC No. 10705 of 2013. Accordingly, I.A. No. 2 of 2023 stands allowed.

¶24

2. On the previous occasion dated 16.02.2024, the following order was passed:-

¶25

“There is a delay of 322 days in filing the present LPA. Perusal of the application for condonation of delay, it is evident that on 19.03.2018, CWJC No. 10705 of 2013 was decided whereas the appellant had the knowledge of aforementioned order of this Court on 03.02.2019. When we posed question as to why there is delay of one year in respect of knowledge of the order of this Court, it is submitted, on instruction, that no notice was issued to the appellant/7th respondent in the CWJC no. 10705 of 2013. In other words, it is an ex parte order in so far as the appellant is concerned. To apprise the aforementioned statement, no material has been placed on record to the extent whether this Court has issued a notice in CWJC no. 10705 of 2013 to the appellant who was respondent in CWJC. Therefore the appellant is hereby directed to produce complete order sheet of CWJC no. 10705 of 2013 in order to ascertain whether notice was issued to the appellant or not?

¶26

2. List this matter on 01.03.2024.”

¶27

3. Appellant has filed supplementary affidavit along with

¶28

complete order sheet maintained in CWJC No. 10705 of 2013. Perusal of the order sheet, it is evident that no notice has been issued to the appellant who was Respondent No. 7 in the writ

¶29

Patna High Court L.P.A No.357 of 2019 dt.01-03-2024 3/3

¶30

petition. In all fairness, she should have invoke remedy of filing civil review petition instead of filing the present LPA.

¶31

4. Accordingly, the present LPA No. 357 of 2019 stands disposed of. Reserving liberty to the appellant to file civil review petition before the learned Single Judge. If there is a delay, the same shall be taken note of with reference to pendency of LPA read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

¶32

5. Pending I.A(s), if any, stands disposed of.

¶33

(P. B. Bajanthri, J)

¶34

( Alok Kumar Pandey, J)

¶35

abhishekkr/-

¶36

AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date Transmission Date NA

Rekha Kumari v. The State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rekha Kumari v. The State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md. Muzaffar Alam Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Chandra Deo Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Shri Manik Pasi Vs The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Home

Ashok Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Abhinesh Kumar Nirala Vs Jyoti Devi @ Rina Devi and Anr.

Ranjeet Kumar Vs The State of Bihar