IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MJC No.3523 of 2009
MUNNA KUMAR .
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. .
-----------
05. 23.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
The order in the writ petition was simplicitor
for disposal of representation. The petitioner in haste
was not even desirous of pressing the grounds of the
representation.
The show cause filed on behalf of the District
Superintendent of Education states that on 9.2.2011
the representation has been disposed rejecting the
claims. Statement has been made in paprapgraph-5
that the costs for the delay in filing of the show cause
has been deposited as directed on 12.1.2011 and that
an enquiry shall be held to fix responsibility for
recovery. The show cause of the District
Superintendent of Education does not contain any
explanation for the delay in the filing of the show
cause. The Court is therefore satisfied that the
responsibility for the delay rests squarely on the
District Superintendent of Education. The District
Magistrate, Gopalganj is therefore directed to ensure
that the amount of costs of Rs.1,000/- are recovered
from the salary of the District Superintendent of
2
Education.
If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order
dated 9.2.2011, his remedy lies in questioning the
same in a fresh writ application.
The proceeding stands disposed.
P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)