Last Updated on
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 57 of 2014 --- Dr. Krishna Bihari Lall --- --- ---- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry & Fishery, Government of Bihar 2. The Secretary,Department of Animal Husbandry & Fishery, Govt. of Bihar 3. Additional Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry & Fishery, Government of Bihar 4. The State of Jharkhand 5. The Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry, Govt. of Jharkhand 6. The Director, Animal Husbandry Department,Govt. of Jharkhand - Respondents --- CORAM: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioner: Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate For the Respondent No. 4-6: JC to Sr. SC-I --- 03/ 01.05.2015
Heard counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner seeks restoration of CWJC No. 8163/1999 which was
dismissed as not pressed by order dated 30.01.2014, which reads as under:
“None appears on behalf of the petitioner. However, counsel for
the State is preset.
Learned counsel Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, whose name is
reflecting in the cause list submitted that the petitioner has taken
back the brief from his office long ago and is not in touch with
him. It however appears that no one has entered appearance
thereafter on behalf of the petitioner. It also appears that earlier
also the writ petition was dismissed for default, in the absence of
representation on behalf of the petitioner, which was restored,
thereafter. The matter relates to the year 1999 and it appears that
the petitioner is no longer interested in the matter.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed as
3. It is not disputed by the petitioner that he had taken away the brief from his
counsel who was engaged in the said writ petition and had not entrusted it to any
such counsel. The matter was of 1999 and had been dismissed earlier also for
default. Learned counsel who was earlier representing the petitioner was gracious
enough to inform the Court on the fateful day despite the fact that the brief have
been taken away from him long ago that he was no longer in a position to represent
the petitioner. Therefore, on 30.01.2014, taking note of all these facts, this Court
was constrained to dismiss the writ petition as not pressed.
4. Having considered the submissions of the parties and averments in the
instant petition seeking restoration, I am not satisfied that the petitioner was
diligent enough in prosecuting his case. Therefore this Court is not inclined to
accept his explanation. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)