RAMCHARITRA ROY Vs. HIGH COURT OF PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner under Article 32 of the constitution makes the following allegations:

(2.) No one has appeared on behalf of the petitioner to explain to us how any fundamental right of the petitioner has been affected. From the reply filed on behalf of the High Court it appears that there was a very detailed order by the District Judge of Purnea setting out the responsibility of the petitioner for delaying land acquisition case No. 119 of 1958. (Mrs, Dhana Laxmi Lal v. Rasik Lal) and the payment of compensation money of Rs. 24,140/- to the lady concerned. The circumstances indicated that the petitioner, who was incharge of the case, had acted in violation of Rule 24 and directions given to him. The finding was that he had deliberately shelved the issue of a payment order in order to harass the litigant who was running from pillar to post for redress. Presumably, his object was dishonesty. He had been punished very lightly after his case had been sent back for further opportunity to be given to him to be heard. His apea1 had been dismissed by the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court on 8th November, 1971, by a detailed order with full reasons disclosed there. No aspect of Art. 16 (1) of the Constitution can arise in this case. This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed but in the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.