STATE OF BIHAR Vs. SHANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANY order which has been passed on the writ petition can hardly be contended on behalf of the State that it suffers from any error.

(2.) THE order records that on behalf of the State no reply was filed as a counter affidavit. Respondent no. 8 who had been especially served with separate notice, for reasons best known, choose neither to file a counter affidavit nor appear.

(3.) FURTHER , of an order which was passed on the writ petition on 24. July, 2001, a Letters Patent Appeal is being filed in 2003 after almost one year and three months. This clearly shows that either there was a callousness in not replying to the petition and further callousness in not filing the Letters Patent Appeal within limitation. Not only this, the affidavit supporting the application seeking condonation of delay mentions that the Dealing Assistant put up the file on 19 March, 2002 for review and for opinion of the Advocate General through the officer on special duty (Ayurvedic).