IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
LPA No.485 of 2011
Ruby Kumari & Ors
Versus
The State Of Bihar & Ors
-----------
3. 26.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Nobody
appears on behalf of the State.
Initially these three appellants along with one
Harishchandra Majhi preferred a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C.No.
11174 of 2007 against the order dated 3rd July 2007. The said writ
petition was dismissed on 25 th February 2008. It appears that the
appellant no.1 Rubi Kumari preferred another writ petition bearing
C.W.J.C.No. 10276 of 2008 and as appears from the order dated 29th
August 2008, the said writ petition was disposed of without going into
the merits of the case. Learned counsel did not press the application on
merit but wanted disposal of representation said to be pending before
the Divisional Commissioner.
The appellants have represented before the Divisional
Commissioner against the order dated 3rd July 2007 which was subject
matter of C.W.J.C.No. 11174 of 2007 and their prayer is that the
Divisional Commissioner should be directed to dispose of their
representation within a reasonable time, particularly because the
representation of one Harishchandra Majhi is said to have been disposed
of by the Divisional Commissioner favorably.
The writ court dismissed the writ petition of the
appellants bearing No. 9729 of 2010 by the order under appeal dated
14th February 2011 because it did not approve the filing of the 2 nd writ
petition and withdrawing the same for disposal of representation without
drawing the attention of the learned single judge that earlier writ
petition stood dismissed.
2
The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
fact of dismissal of earlier writ petition was mentioned in the last
paragraph of C.W.J.C.No. 10276 of 2008 and, hence, it was not a case
of suppression of material facts.
An important fact tuck out in one of the paragraphs of
the writ petition may not serve its purpose, unless the attention of the
court is drawn. In our view, while withdrawing the writ petition or not
pressing it on merit, counsel for Rubi Kumari who appeared in
C.W.J.C.No.10276 of 2008 ought to have drawn attention of the court
to the fact of dismissal of earlier writ petition. That was not done.
Be as it may, now the innocuous prayer of the appellant
is that the Divisional Commissioner should dispose of the
representation of the appellants one way or the other. Since the relevant
facts have not appeared in this order-sheet, this appeal is disposed of
with liberty to the appellants to bring a copy of this order to the notice
of the Divisional Commissioner and if he has not disposed of the
representation of the appellant so far, he shall dispose of the
representation strictly in accordance with law at an early date,
preferably within 2 months from the date of receipt/production of copy
of this order.
The order of the writ court stands modified to that
extent and the appeal is disposed of.
( Shiva Kirti Singh,J)
Jay/ ( Shivaji Pandey, J)