AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Aparesh Kumar Singh
(In L.P.A. Nos.15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33,34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80,81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98 and 99 of 2012)
In view of the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, it appears that there are two conflicting judgments of two single Benches and both the parties are aggrieved against either of the two judgments and, therefore, preferred appeals. For the above reason, we deem appropriate to condone the delay in preferring the appeals by the State. Hence, I.A. Nos.183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 195, 196, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 214, 215, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 459, 460, 461, 462, 463 and 464 of 2012 are allowed and delay in preferring the appeals is condoned.
These appeals be listed along with L.P.A. No. 447 of 2011 and connected matters for admission.
(In L.P.A. Nos. 447, 328 and 439 of 2011)
These appeals will be taken-up along with the above bunch of cases and further bunch of cases i.e.; L.P.A. Nos. 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158 and 162 of 2012, wherein appeals have been preferred either by the State or by the private parties.
List all these cases on 28th March, 2012 for final disposal at the admission stage. Meanwhile, no coercive step be taken against the State.