CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2006) 07 PAT CK 0085

Narendra Prasad vs The State of Bihar and Others

Patna High Court · Decided on 10 July 2006 · Citation: (2006) 4 PLJR 116

HON’BLE JUDGES
J.N. Bhatt, C.J
CASE NUMBER
CWJC No. 2721 of 2000

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 376 words

Dr. J.N. Bhatt, C.J.—Upon joint request, the matter has been taken up for final hearing, as the learned counsel for the Government has appeared at the admission stage. By this Court on, 29.9.1999 in CWJC No. 5351 of 1998, a direction was issued in the following terms:-

If any such representation is filed by the petitioner, the authority will consider the same in accordance with law taking into consideration the benefit, if any, granted in favour of other persons, as stated above.

A decision in this respect be taken and communicated to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such representation.

2.

In the earlier paragraph in the said order, it has been stated that as the question relating to relaxation of height of petitioner cannot be determined by this Court, no specific relief can be granted at this stage. It was further observed that "the petitioner is given liberty to move before the Director General-cum-lnspector General of Police for his re-instatement on relaxation of his height in terms with the rule".

3.

Pursuant to the direction, a representation came to be made and it has been decided by the order of the authorities dated 12.1.2000, a copy whereof is produced as Annexure 8, which is considered, and, admittedly, it does not contain "why". The reason is not assigned. It is simply stated that the height of the petitioner is not in terms of the rule provision whereas, the question, which was directed to be considered on representation, has been to consider the representation for relaxation of age in accordance with law. Obviously, such a direction was given to consider the case of the petitioner on representation and to decide in accordance with law with reason which, precisely, was not done. Therefore, following directions, again, are required to be given:- The respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner whether the rule for fixity of height should be relaxed or not. The respondent authorities are directed to consider afresh and decide in accordance with law and reason within a period of two months from today with an intimation to the petitioner.

With these observations, this petition shall stand disposed of. Rule is made absolute. No costs.