IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 597 of 2006
------
Niranjan Prasad Deo & Ors. …… Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. …… Respondents
————-
CORAM : HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE JAYA ROY
For the Appellants : M/s Shree Prakash Sinha &
Satya Prakash Sinha, Advocates
For the State : Advocate General
For the Respondents : M/s J.P.Gupta, I.Sen Choudhary,
S.P.Roy, R.S. Mazumdar, Tapas
Kabiraj, Saurav Arun, S.N. Prasad,
Rajiv Ranjan, Prabhash Kumar and
Manish Mishra, Advocates
————-
Order No.13 Dated the 8th of June, 2011
Though the matter was listed for consideration of the
application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, but this Court
noticed that there were 51 respondents and as per the prayer of the
petitioners-appellants, the names of the Respondent Nos. 21, 22, 23, 24,
26, 36, 38, 41, 43 and 48 have been deleted as against these persons, no
relief survives because of the subsequent development and the petition of
the petitioners-appellants was dismissed on the ground of delay as the
learned Single Judge has observed that the petitioners-appellants are
challenging the cause, which arose 16 -21 years before they filed the writ
petition. Therefore, this Court was of the view that instead of sending
notice for condoning the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it
may be examined whether the cause survives or not due to the
subsequent development on account of issue of Final Seniority List of the
employees by the State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand. Therefore,
the parties were directed to address the Court afresh on the merit of the
case. This Court was of the opinion that the Advocate General should
assist the Court and therefore, on 16.5.2011 directed the Advocate
General to assist the Court.
2. The learned Advocate General who appeared in this
petition on 7.6.2011 on behalf of the respondents, drew our
attention to the fact that he was the counsel for the writ petitioners
in the earlier litigation. However, this Court was of the view that
presently we are on the question of law only. Therefore, we directed
the learned Advocate General to assist this Court and learned
Advocate General very fairly without taking any side assisted the
Court on the question of law by drew our attention to judgment of
the Supreme Court delivered in the case of Sanjay Kumar Sinha-II
Vs State of Bihar & Others, reported in 2004 (10) SCC 734. The said
judgment has been referred before the learned Single Judge and on
the basis of that judgment, direction has been given by the learned
Single Judge to the State to follow the decisions given in the Sanjay
Kumar Sinha-II’s case (Supra).
3. Heard the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants
and the learned Advocate General.
4. Order is reserved.
(Prakash Tatia, A.C.J.)
(Jaya Roy, J.)
Biswas/SI