High CourtsDivision Bench(1989) 02 PAT CK 0010

Saheb Dayal Sah and Others vs State of Bihar and Others

Patna High Court · Decided on 1 February 1989 · Citation: (1989) PLJR 956

HON’BLE JUDGES
N.P. Singh, J · N. Pandey, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
C.W.J.C. No. 8145 of 1988

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

4 paragraphs · 371 words
1.

This writ application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners for quashing an order dated 5.9.1988 passed by Shri Kalika Prasad Sinha, the then Deputy Director, Consolidation (Headquarters). Bihar, Patna, while exercising power u/s 35 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956. On behalf of the petitioners the main grievance which has been made is that the said Deputy Director has passed the impugned order on 5.9.1988 allowing the revision application filed by the opposite party, after said Shri Kalika Prasad Sinha (Shri K.P. Sinha) had been relieved from the post of the Deputy Director, Consolidation (Headquarter!,) on 2.9.1988. The petitioners have enclosed an order of the State Government showing that said Shri K.P. Sinha had been relieved from the post of the Deputy Director, Consolidation (Headquarters), on 2.9.1988.

2.

At the stage of admission itself, notice was issued to the contesting respondents. Pursuant to that notice a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4. It does not appear to be in dispute that said Shri K.P. Sinha had been relieved from the post aforesaid on 2.9.1988. But, according to the respondents, he had handed over charge on 5.9.1988; as such he could have passed the order on 5.9.1988.

3.

It is really shocking that an officer, who had been relieved on 2.9.1988, should exercise quasi-judicial power and dispose of a statutory revision application thereafter. As such we are left with no option but to allow this application at the stage of admission itself after hearing the parties concerned and quash the impugned order dated 5.9.1988 (Annexure ''8'') and direct that the Revision Application No. 3335 of 1987 be heard afresh and disposed of in accordance with law.

4.

Senior members of Bar including Mr. T.K. Jha, who were present in the Court, informed us that the said officer has passed many other similar orders after he had been relieved. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned Advocate General for communication to the department concerned for any proper enquiry into the circumstances under which Shri K.P. Sinha has passed such orders even after he had been relieved from the post of Deputy Director, Consolidation (Headquarters).