SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Subodh Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 24 July, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.1127 of 2017
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -219 Year- 2013 Thana -LALIT NARAYAN UNIVERSITY District-
DARBHANGA

1. Subodh Kumar S/o Late Suresh Prasad Choudhary R/o Mohalla-
Kathalwari, P.S. L.N.M.U., District- Darbhanga.

…. …. Appellant/s
Versus

1. The State of Bihar …. …. Respondent/s

Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mrs. Soni Shrivastava, Adv
Mr. Ravi Bhardwaj, Adv.

For the Respondent/s : Mr. Bipin Kumar, APP

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI
CAV ORDER

10 24-07-2018 Heard both sides over I.A. No. 1923/2018 filed on

behalf of appellant.

2. Seldom it occurs. However, the present

scenario depicts the same. Before having a solution of present

abstruse, it looks appropriate to have a glance over factual matrix.

The sole appellant has been found guilty for an offence punishable

under Section 376 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 10

years as well as to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/- in default thereof, to

undergo RI for 2 years additionally, by 4th Additional Sessions

Judge, Darbhanga in Sessions Trial No. 50/2015 vide judgment of

conviction dated 28.02.2017 and order of sentence dated

03.03.2017. Prosecutrix alleged that on 15.02.2013, she was raped

by the appellant who was on visiting term being a distant relative

and subsequently thereof, being apprehensive of untoward event,

appellant offered to marry and under the garb of aforesaid
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1127 o f 2017 (10) dt.22-07-2018 2

allurement, he succeeded in convincing, overpowering the victim

whereunder he continued with physical intimacy as a result of

which the victim became pregnant. Then thereafter, appellant

refused to marry. At an initial stage of the appeal having been

admitted, prayer for bail was filed and the same was rejected vide

order dated 12.07.2017. Subsequently thereof, prayer has been re-

agitated under I.A. No. 852/2018 and during course of hearing of

the aforesaid I.A. petition, the factual aspect of the case was

flashed inconsonance with the evidence (chief cross-examination)

along with different judicial pronouncements and virtually, the

exercise has been adopted at the end of the learned counsel for the

appellant posed to be arguing the appeal on its merit confining the

same under banner of promiscuous activity whereupon, order was

reserved and then, vide judgment dated 27.06.2018, appeal was

dismissed.

3. Now the grievance at the end of the appellant

happens to be that though, the merit of the case was touched but

the same was in order to persuade the Bench that from the

evidence of the victim PW-5, being major was a consenting party

and so, it was not a case of rape whereupon bail should be granted.

The exercise having been done at the end of the appellant was

only for bail and not on merit of the appeal though, the evidences

were referred to in such a manner and that being so, by the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1127 o f 2017 (10) dt.22-07-2018 3

impugned judgment the right of the appellant has been prejudiced.

Consequent thereupon, the same be recalled.

4. The learned APP, while opposing the prayer,

has submitted that because of the fact that evidences in such a

manner projecting arguing the appeal on its merit has been

referred and that happens to be reason behind in getting the

judgment impugned. So, no interest of the appellant could be

found prejudiced.

5. Certainly, I.A. No. 852/2018 was being heard

over the question of bail in accordance with Section 389(1) CrPC

and during course thereof, the learned counsel for the appellant

endeavoured her best to persuade the Bench to accept her

submission that being major, the victim (PW 5) was a consenting

party and further tried to explore from the evidence whereupon

referred the same and on account thereof, the judgment impugned

has been delivered, dismissing the appeal.

6. A prohibition has been imposed in altering,

modifying, the judgment once it is delivered. However, like

Section 151 CrPC, no such provision is found under the CrPC so

far, subordinate courts are concerned. However, Section 482 of the

CrPC prescribes and properly identifies the power of the High

Court under its inherent jurisdiction and further having been

boundless limit.

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1127 o f 2017 (10) dt.22-07-2018 4

7. In Surya Baksh Singh v. State of Uttar

Pradesh as reported in (2014) 14 SCC 222, it has been held as

follows:-

“7. Last, but not least in our
appreciation of the law, Section 482 of the CrPC
stands in solitary splendour. It preserves the inherent
power of the High Court. It enunciates that nothing in
the CrPC shall be deemed to limit or affect the
inherent powers of the High Court to make such
orders as may be necessary, firstly, to „give effect to
any order under the CrPC‟, words which are not to be
found in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereafter
referred to as „CPC‟). Ergo, the High Court can,
while exercising inherent powers in its criminal
jurisdiction, take all necessary steps for enforcing
compliance of its orders. For salutary reason Section
482 makes the criminal Court much more effective
and all pervasive than the civil Court insofar as
ensuring obedience of its orders is concerned.
Secondly, Section 482 clarifies that the CrPC does
not circumscribe the actions available to the High
Court to prevent abuse of its process, from the
inception of proceedings till their culmination.
Judicial process includes compelling a respondent to
appear before it. When the Court encounters a
recalcitrant Appellant/convict who shows negligible
interest in prosecuting his appeal, none of the
Sections in Chapter XXIX of the CrPC dealing with
appeals, precludes or dissuades it from dismissing the
appeals. It seems to us that passing such orders would
eventually make it clear to all that intentional and
repeated failure to prosecute the appeal would
inexorably lead not merely to incarceration but more
importantly to the confirmation of the conviction and
sentence consequent on the dismissal of the appeal.

Thirdly, none of the provisions of the CrPC can
possibly limit the power of the High Court to
otherwise secure the ends of justice. While it is not
possible to define the concept of „justice‟, suffice it to
say that it encompasses not just the rights of the
convict, but also of victims of crime as well as of the
law abiding section of society who look towards the
Courts as vital instruments for preservation of peace
and the curtailment or containment of crime by
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1127 o f 2017 (10) dt.22-07-2018 5

punishing those who transgress the law. If convicts
can circumvent the consequence of their conviction,
peace, tranquility and harmony in society will be
reduced to a chimera. Section 482 emblazons the
difference between preventing the abuse of the jural
process on the one hand and securing of the ends of
justice on the other. It appears to us that Section 482
of the CrPC has not been given due importance in
combating the rampant malpractice of filing appeals
only for scotching sentences imposed by criminal
Courts.

8. *****

9. *****

10.*****

11. *****

12. *****

13. *****

14. *****

15. *****

16. *****

17. *****

18. 12. Section 482 of the CrPC is of singular
and seminal significance. The statutory provision
which immediately comes to mind is Section 151 of
the CPC because to a great extent the language is
identical. We are juxtaposing the two Sections for the
facility of reference:-

Section 482 of CrPC Section 151 of CPC
“482. Saving of inherent powe r “151.Saving of inherent powe rs
of High Court.– Nothing in of Court.– Nothing in this Code
this Code shall be deemed to shall be deemed to limit or
limit or affect the inherent otherwise affect the inherent
powers of the High Court to power of the Court to make such
make such orders as may be order as may be necessary for the
necessary to give effect to any ends of justice or to prevent abuse
order under this Code, or to of the process of the Court.
prevent abuse of the process of
any Court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice.

It is at once obvious that whereas Section 482
of the CrPC is available only to the High Courts, Section
151 can be resorted to at any stage of civil judicial
proceedings in any of the hierarchical tiers. Secondly, the
use of the word „otherwise‟ in Section 482 has the avowed
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1127 o f 2017 (10) dt.22-07-2018 6

effect of boundlessly broadening the boundaries of inherent
powers of the High Court in exercise of its criminal
jurisdiction. Thirdly, Section 482 can be employed to
ensure obedience of any order passed by the Court because
of the phrase “to give effect to any order under this Code”.

19. State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy,
(1977) 2 SCC 699 enunciates that in exercise of its inherent
powers in criminal matters “the High Court is entitled to
quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that
allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of
the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require
that the proceeding ought to be quashed…..The ends of
justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice
has got to be administered according to laws made by the
Legislature. The compelling necessity for making these
observations is that without a proper realisation of the
object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the
inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the
State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate
the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction”.

20. A Three-Judge Bench clarified in
Krishnan v. Krishnaveni, (1997) 4 SCC 241 that although a
second Revision before the High Court after dismissal of
the first one by the Court of Sessions is barred by Section
397(3), the inherent powers of the High Court under
Section 482 are nevertheless available albeit with restraint
so as to avoid needless multiplicity of the proceedings. This
Court had opined that “when the High Court notices that
there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial
mechanism or procedure, sentence or order is not correct, it
is but the salutary duty of the High Court to prevent the
abuse of the process or miscarriage of justice or to correct
irregularities ….. The inherent power of the High Court is
not one conferred by the Code but one which the High
Court already has in it and it is preserved by the Court”.

8. In Vishnu Agarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh

as reported in (2011) 14 SCC 813 , it has been held as follows:-

6. In our opinion, Section 362 cannot be
considered in a rigid and over technical manner to
defeat the ends of justice. As Brahaspati has observed
:

“Kevalam Shastram Ashritya Na Kartavyo
Vinirnayah Yuktiheeney Vichare tu Dharmahaani
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1127 o f 2017 (10) dt.22-07-2018 7

Prajayate”

which means:

“The Court should not give its decision based
only on the letter of the law.

For if the decision is wholly unreasonable,
injustice will follow.”

7. Apart from the above, we are of the
opinion that the application filed by the respondent
was an application for recall of the Order dated
2.9.2003 and not for review. In Asit Kumar Vs. State
of West Bengal and Ors. 2009(1) SCR 469, this
Court made a distinction between recall and review
which is as under:-

“6. There is a distinction between …… a
review petition and a recall petition. While in a
review petition, the Court considers on merits
whether there is an error apparent on the face of the
record, in a recall petition the Court does not go into
the merits but simply recalls an order which was
passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to an
affected party.

7. We are treating this petition under Article
32 as a recall petition because the order passed in the
decision in All Bengal Licensees Association Vs.
Raghabendra Singth Ors. [2007(11) SCC 374]
cancelling certain licences was passed without giving
opportunity of hearing to the persons who had been
granted licences.”

8. Hence, we see no error in the impugned
order passed by the High Court. The appeal fails and
is accordingly dismissed.”

9. In the case of Uma Shanker Jha v. State of

Bihar as reported in 2001(3) PLJR 728, it has been held as

follows:-

6. The learned counsel has also relied
upon a decision decided by me which finds reported
in 2000 (2) All P.L.R.506 which is also on the point
of recall and after relying on the judgments reported
in A.I.R. 1987 Raj. 83 (FB), 1985 Cr. L.J. 23 the
order passed in Cr. Misc. No. 3920 of 1995 (R) was
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1127 o f 2017 (10) dt.22-07-2018 8

recalled. Relying upon the aforesaid decisions it was
submitted that the petitioner was deprived of his
valuable right of hearing and for the fault of the
lawyer the petitioner should not be made to suffer. It
was submitted that the petitioner has not prayed for
reviewing the order which is prohibited under Section
362 of the Cr. P.C. rather, the prayer is to recall the
order so that the petitioner may be heard and Court
has ample power under section 482 of the Cr. P.C. to
recall the order to secure the ends of justice. The
learned counsel also submitted that even if it is found
that the counsel appearing for the petitioner was
negligent or careless the petitioner should not suffer,
for his inaction. So, in this view of the matter also an
opportunity should be given to the petitioner and the
matter may be decided on merits.

7. The learned counsel referred to the
case of Emperor vs. Shivadutt, (1928) III Ind Cases
573 (A.I.R. Oudh 402) wherein it was held as under :

“Where owing to counsel’s carelessness
in not appearing in the Court at the time, when a case
is called on for hearing, his client’s case goes
unrepresented and an ex parte order is passed, the
High Court has jurisdiction under S. 561-A of the Cr.
P.C. to entertain an application to re-hear the matter,
if, in its discretion, it considers it necessary to do so
in order to secure the ends of justice.”

In the case of Central Inland Water
Transport Corporation Ltd. vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly,
A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1571 it was held as under :

“The law exists to serve the needs of the
society which is governed by it. If the law is to play
its allotted role of serving the needs of the society, it
must reflect the ideas and ideologies of the society. It
must keep time with the heart beats of the society and
with the needs and aspiration of the people. As the
society changes, the law cannot remain immutable.

The early nineteenth century essayist and wit, Sydney
Smith said : “When I hear any man talk of an
unalterable law, I am convinced that he is an
unalterable Fool.’ The law must, therefore, in a
changing society march in tune with the changed
ideas and ideologies. Legislatures are, however, not
best fitted for the rule of adapting the law to the
necessities of the time for the legislative process is
too slow and the legislatures often divided by
politics, slowed down by periodic elections and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1127 o f 2017 (10) dt.22-07-2018 9

overburdened with myriad other legislative activities.
A constitutional document is even less suited to this
task, for the philosophy and the ideologies underlying
it must of necessity be expressed in broad and general
terms and the process of amending a Constitution is
too cumbersome and time consuming to meet the
immediate needs. This task must, therefore, of
necessity fall upon the Courts because the Courts can
by the process of judicial interpretation adapt the law
to suit the needs of the society.

In the case of Rafiq vs. Munshilal A.I.R.
1981 S.C. 1400 it has been held as under :

“Where an appeal filed by the appellant
was disposed of in absence of his counsel, so also his
application for recall of order of dismissal was
rejected by the High Court, the Supreme Court in
appeal set aside both the orders of dismissal on the
ground that a party who as per the present adversary
legal system, has selected his advocate, briefed him
and paid his fee can remain supremely confident that
his lawyer will look after his interest and such an
innocent party who has done everything in his power
and expected of him, should not suffer for the
inaction, deliberate omission or ‘ mis-demeanour of
his counsel.”

8. The learned counsel appearing for the
State, however, submitted that the Criminal Revision
no. 54/99 which was dismissed by order dated
7.5.2001 by this Court after considering the merits
cannot be altered or reviewed and the inherent
powers under section 482 of the Cr. P.C. cannot be
exercised to do what the Code specifically prohibits
the courts from doing. It was submitted that section
362 expressly prohibits the Court from altering or
reviewing its final order after the same is signed. As
such, it would not be open to High Court to review or
alter the order by admitting a fresh revision
application. It was submitted that in view of the
provisions of section 362 Cr. P.C. the order dated
7.5.2001 cannot be recalled.

9. In the case of Habu vs. State of
Rajasthan Full Bench A.I.R. 1987, 83 after
considering the various judgments of the Apex Court,
their lordships were of the view that the inherent
power given under section 482 of the Cr. P.C. are
wide enough to cover any type of cases, if three
conditions as mentioned therein so warrant, namely, :

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1127 o f 2017 (10) dt.22-07-2018 10

(a) For the purpose of giving effect to
any order passed under the Code of Criminal
Procedure, (b) For the purpose of preventing abuse of
the process of any Court, (c) For otherwise securing
the ends of justice.

The following views were also ex-

pressed in the same judgment :

(i) The principles of auti alteram partem
shall be violated if right of hearing is taken away.

(ii) That when the judgment is recalled it
is a complete obliteration/abrogation of the earlier
judgment and the Appeal or the Revision, as the case
may be, has to be heard and decided afresh.

(iii) That no fixed parameters can be
fixed and hard and fast rule also cannot be laid down
and Court in appropriate cases where it is specified
that one of the three conditions of Section 482 of the
Cr. P.C. are attracted should interfere.

10. It is well known dictum that justice
has not only to be done but it should also appear to
have been done and therefore, whenever a litigant
comes before the Court it is essential that he must go
having full faith in his mind and the Court has done
justice with his case and he must at least have the
satisfaction that he has been heard by Court. The
position of a litigant is also helpless because he has to
depend upon his lawyer and mercy of others. He has
full confidence on his counsel that he will do his best
in his interest. It is well settled that if due to
carelessness or laches on the part of lawyer, a case is
dismissed the litigant should not be made to suffer. In
the instant case the admitted position is that the
counsel appearing for the petitioner was not present
on any date when the case was fixed for hearing and
through the aid of his colleague adjournments were
prayed for which were allowed by the court on three
occasions but ultimately the court was compelled to
reject the similar prayer since the matter had become
too old and the stay was granted in this case.
Eventually, the matter was heard ex parte and
revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed
after perusing the order passed by the trial court. It
would, therefore, appear that no detail hearing was
done in the case and the petitioner could not get the
opportunity of detail hearing. The counsel for the
petitioner has, therefore, submitted that the petitioner
was highly prejudiced because his case was not
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1127 o f 2017 (10) dt.22-07-2018 11

argued due to which the revision application was
dismissed and the petitioner did not get justice. There
was lapse on the part of conducting lawyer which has
made him to suffer. It was, therefore, submitted that
in the ends of justice the petitioner should be afforded
an opportunity of hearing which will be in
conformity with the principles of natural justice and
the court has inherent powers under sections 482 of
the Cr. P.C. to recall the order for securing the ends
of justice.

11. The Apex Court in the case of
Bhagwat Singh vs. Commissioner of Police reported
in A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1285 held as under : “To
emphasize is that right of hearing is very important
right which no litigant should be deprived.” In view
of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in so
many decisions as also the decision reported in A.I.R.
1987 Rajasthan 83 which is based on several
decisions of the Apex Court, I am of the view that the
order dated 7.5.2001 passed in Criminal Revision No.
54 of 1999 should be recalled for the ends of justice.

10. In the case of A. R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak as

reported in (1988) 2 SCC 602, wherein the court took notice of the

earlier order passed by itself and while setting it aside observed as

follows:-

81. This case has caused us considerable
anxiety. The appellant accused has held an important
position in this country, being the Chief Minister of a
premier State of the country. He has been charged
with serious criminal offences. His trial in
accordance with law and the procedure established by
law would have to be in accordance with the 1952
Act. That could not possibly be done because of the
directions of this Court dated 16th February, 1984, as
indicated above. It has not yet been found whether
the appellant is guilty or innocent. It is unfortunate,
unfortunate for the people of the State, unfortunate
for the country as a whole, unfortunate for the future
working of democracy in this country which, though
is not a plant of an easy growth yet is with deep root
in the Indian polity that delay has occurred due to
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1127 o f 2017 (10) dt.22-07-2018 12

procedural wrangles. The appellant may be guilty of
grave offences alleged against him or he may be
completely or if not completely to a large extent,
innocent. Values in public life and perspective of
these values in public life, have undergone serious
changes and erosion during the last few decades.
What was unheard of before is common place today.
A new value orientation is being undergone in our
life and in our culture. We are at the threshold of the
cross-roads of values. It is, for the sovereign people
of the country to settle those conflicts yet the Courts
have vital roles to play in such matters. With the
avowed object of speedier trial the case of the
appellant had been transferred to the High Court but
on grounds of expediency of trial he cannot be
subjected to a procedure unwarranted by law, and
contrary to the constitutional provisions. The
appellant may or may not be an ideal politician. It is a
fact, however, that the allegations have been brought
against him by a person belonging to a political party
opposed to his but that is not the decisive factor. If
the appellant Shri Abdul Rehman Antulay has
infringed law, he must be dealt with in accordance
with the law. We proclaim and pronounce that no
man is above the law, but at the same time reiterate
and declare that no man can be denied his rights
under the Constitution and the laws. He has a right to
be dealt with in accordance with the law and not in
derogation of it. This Court? in its anxiety to
facilitate the parties to have a speedy trial gave
directions on 16th February, 1984 as mentioned
hereinbefore without conscious awareness of the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Special Courts under the
1952 Act and that being the only procedure
established by law, there can be no deviation from
the terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
That is the only procedure under which it should have
been guided. By reason of giving the directions on
16th February, 1984 this Court had also
unintentionally caused the appellant the denial of
rights under Article 14 of the Constitution by denying
him the equal protection of law by being singled out
for a special procedure not provided for by law.

When these factors are brought to the notice of this
Court, even if there are any technicalities this Court
should not feel shackled and decline to rectify that
injustice or other vise the injustice noticed will
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1127 o f 2017 (10) dt.22-07-2018 13

remain forever a blot on justice. It has been said long
time ago that “Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit”-an
act of the Court shall prejudice no man. This maxim
is founded upon justice and good sense and affords a
safe and certain guide for the administration of the
law.

82. Lord Cairns in Alexander Rodger v. The
Comptoir D’escompte De Paris, (Law Reports Vol.
III 1869-71 page 465 at page 475) observed thus:

“Now, their Lordships are of opinion, that one
of the first and highest duties of all Courts is to take
care that the act of the Court does no injury to any of
the Suitors, and when the expression ‘the act of the
Court’ is used, it does not mean merely the act of the
Primary Court, or of any intermediate Court of
appeal, but the act of the Court as a whole, from the
lowest Court which entertains jurisdiction over the
matter up to the highest Court which finally disposes
of the case. It is the duty of the aggregate of those
Tribunals, if I may use the expression, to take care
that no act of the Court in the course of the whole of
the proceedings does an injury to the suitors in the
Court.”

83. This passage was quoted in the Gujarat
High Court by D.A. Desai, J. speaking for the
Gujarat High Court in Vrajlal v. Jadavji (supra) as
mentioned before. It appears that in giving directions
on 16th February, 1984, this Court acted per incuriam
inasmuch it did not bear in mind consciously the
consequences and the provisions of sections 6 and 7
of the 1952 Act and the binding nature of the larger
Bench decision in Anwar Ali Sarkar’s case (supra)
which was not adverted to by this Court. The basic
fundamentals of the administration of justice are
simple. No man should suffer because of the mistake
of the Court. No man should suffer a wrong by
technical procedure of irregularities. Rules or
procedures are the hand-maids of justice and not the
mistress of the justice. Ex debite justitiae, we must do
justice to him. If a man has been wronged so long as
it lies within the human machinery of administration
of justice that wrong must be remedied. This is a
peculiar fact of this case which requires emphasis.

84. *******

85. *******

86. ln the aforesaid view of the matter and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1127 o f 2017 (10) dt.22-07-2018 14

having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case, we are of the opinion that the legal wrong that
has been caused to the appellant should be remedied.
Let that wrong be therefore remedied. Let right be
done and in doing so let no more further injury be
caused to public purpose.

87. ln the aforesaid view of the matter the
appeal is allowed; all proceedings in this matter
subsequent to the directions of this Court on 16th
February, 1984 as indicated before are set aside and
quashed. The trial shail proceed in accordance with
law, that is to say under the Act of 1952 as mentioned
hereinbefore.

11. In the case of Asit Kumar Kar v. State of West Bengal

as reported in (2009) 2 SCC 703, it has been held as follows:-

4. It is a basic principle of justice that no
adverse orders should be passed against a party
without hearing him. This is the fundamental
principle of natural justice and it is a basic canon of
jurisprudence. In the Seven Judge Constitution Bench
of this Court, A.R. Antuley v. R.S. Nayak Anr.
1988 (2) SCC 602] it has been observed in paragraph
55 thereof:

“55. So also the violation of the principles of
natural justice renders the act a nullity”.

5. ******

6. There is a distinction between a petition
under Article 32, a review petition and a recall
petition. While in a review petition the Court
considers on merits where there is an error apparent
on the face of the record, in a recall petition the Court
does not go into the merits but simply recalls an order
which was passed without giving an opportunity of
hearing to an affected party.

7. We are treating this petition under Article
32 as a recall petition because the order passed in the
decision in All Bengal Licensees Association v.

Raghabendra Singh Ors. [2007 (11) SCC 374]
cancelling certain licences was passed without giving
opportunity of hearing to the persons who had been
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1127 o f 2017 (10) dt.22-07-2018 15

granted licences. In these circumstances, we recall
the directions in paragraph 40 of the aforesaid
judgment. However, if anybody has a grievance
against the grant of licences or in the policy of the
State Government, he will be at liberty to challenge it
in appropriate proceedings before the appropriate
Court. The writ petitions are disposed of with these
directions”.

12. Consequent thereupon, the judgment impugned is

recalled. I. A. No. 1923/2018 is allowed. However, it looks

appropriate to direct this matter to be delisted from my board.

(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J)
perwez

U T

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation