IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.57 of 2011
IN
CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No. 12009 of 2010
WITH
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION No. 283 of 2011
WITH
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION No. 284 of 2011
WITH
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION No. 968 of 2011
IN
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 57 of 2011
====================================================
Laxmi Mukhia, son of Late Gayani Mukhia, resident of Village- Barhara,
Police Station-Babubarhi, Block-Babubarhi, District-Madhubani.
.... .... Appellant-Respondents
Versus
1. Satya Narayan Mukhia, son of Late Achechahe Lal Mikhia, resident of
Village- Ghoughaur, Police Station-Babubarhi, District-Madhubani.
.... .... Respondent-Petitioner
2. The State of Bihar through its District Magistrate, Madhubani.
3. The District Magistrate, Madhubani.
4. The Additional District Magistrate (Revenue Confidential Section),
Collectorate, District-Madhubani.
5. The District Fisheries Officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Madhubani.
6. The District Cooperative Officer, Madhubani.
.... .... Respondents-Respondents
====================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Anand K. Ojha, Advocate with
Mr. Ravindra Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Anant Kumar Bhaskar, Advocate with
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Gyan Shankar, A.C. to G.P.-6
====================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
3. 9.2.2011. Interlocutory Application No. 283 of 2011: –
This application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act is filed by the appellant for condonation
of delay of 35 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent
Appeal.
-2-
On the facts and in the circumstances of the
case, the delay is condoned.
Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.
Letters Patent Appeal No. 57 of 2011: –
The appellant, respondent no.6 in the above
C.W.J.C. No. 12009 of 2010, has preferred this appeal
under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the
judgment and order dated 27th October 2010 passed by
the learned single Judge.
The respondent no.1-the writ petitioner is the
resident of village-Chorghaur, district-Madhubani. He
being a resident of that village was the chairman of
Babubarhi Prakhand Sampariwartit Matsyajivi
Swablambi Samiti Limited (hereinafter referred to as
“the Samiti”). The Samiti was awarded a settlement. On
a complaint made by the appellant and the others the said
settlement came to be examined. On such examination
the District Magistrate, Madhubani found that the name
of the respondent no.1 was also included in the voters’
list of village- Chandradih, Block- Khajauli, District-
Madhubani. Thus, he had gained advantage of inclusion
of his name in the voters’ list of two separate assembly
constituencies. On the said ground the settlement made
in favour of the Samiti was cancelled on 17th June 2010.
The said order was challenged by the respondent no.6 in
above C.W.J.C. No. 12009 of 2010. The learned single
Judge has held that though the respondent no.6 was
included in the voters’ list of Khajauli block he was not
demonstrated to be the member of any society of the said
block. There was no justification for cancelling the
-3-
settlement made in favour of Babubarhi Prakhand
Matsyajivi Swablambi Sahkari Samiti Limited,
Ghaghour in Babubarhi block. Therefore, the present
appeal.
Learned advocate Mr. Anand K. Ojha has
appeared for the appellant. He has relied upon the
enquiry report made by the Additional District
Magistrate, Madhubani. Admittedly, the writ petitioner’s
name was included in two different assembly
constituencies. He could not have formed a society of
jalkars in Babubarhi block; nor could such society have
been awarded such a settlement.
We see no merit in the submission made by
the learned advocate. It is not in dispute that the
respondent no.6 is a resident of village-Chorghaur,
Block-Babubarhi, district-Madhubani; that he is the
Chairman of the aforesaid society; the settlement made
in favour of the society could not have been cancelled for
the reason that its Chairman was the member of the
electoral in two constituencies, namely, Babubarhi and
Khajauli. The reason for which the settlement was set
aside was not germane. Moreover, the Additional
District Magistrate went further to cancel the formation
of the Samiti, clearly without the authority of law.
The learned single Judge has rightly set aside
the impugned order of cancellation of the settlement
made by the District Magistrate, Madhubani on 17th June
2010.
No case for interference is made out. The
Appeal is dismissed in limine.
-4-
Interlocutory Application Nos. 284 of 2011
and 968 of 2011 stand disposed of.
(R.M. Doshit, CJ)
(Jyoti Saran, J)
Pawan/-