High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Umesh Kumar Suman vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 20 September, 2010

Patna High Court – Orders
Umesh Kumar Suman vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 20 September, 2010
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                               CWJC No.14661 of 2010
                              UMESH KUMAR SUMAN .
                                        Versus
                           THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS .
                                      -----------

2. 20.9.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

the state.

Since the interest of respondent no. 12 are

sought to be adequately protected at this stage, the Court

does not consider it necessary to issue notice to him

while disposing off the writ petition since the Court has

declined interference with the impugned order at this

stage.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the

District Magistrate, Madhubani dated

03.08.2010/6.8.2010/ 19.8.2010 by which he has set

aside the order of the Block Development Officer dated

20.5.2010 canceling the appointment of respondent

no.12.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the District Magistrate has in fact opined that the

respondent no. 12 was a resident of Mumbai. He should

have called for a forensic report rather than to set aside

the order of the Block Development Officer. Reliance is

placed on an enquiry report dated 10.03.2010.

Counsel for the State submitted that at least
the first part of the order requires no interference.

This Court is satisfied that the finding of the

District Magistrate with regard to the petitioner being at

Mumbai for vocation and then returning home after

selection requires no interference. In so far as the second

ground with regard to the alleged defective application is

concerned, the District Magistrate has arrived at a

conclusion on conjectures and surmises. Having noticed

the issue, he should have proceeded in accordance with

law to the final culmination of a conclusive decision in

accordance with law after calling for a forensic report.

Only if the petitioner represents before the

District Magistrate within 30 days from today, let the

District Magistrate issue notice to the parties including

respondent no. 12 and then proceed to pass final

conclusive orders on the second aspect of the matter

preferably within a maximum period of three months

from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this

order

The orders impugned dated 03.08.2010/

06.08.1998/ 19.08.2010 shall not be an impediment in

the passing of a fresh order by the District Magistrate.

The writ application stands disposed.

P. Kumar                                              ( Navin Sinha, J.)