IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA --- LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1485 of 2010 IN CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO. 10520 of 2010 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.8397 of 2010 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.8398 of 2010 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1485 of 2010 =================================================== Dr.Uma Shankar Madhup s/o Deo Nandan Ram, r/o Rajeev Nagar, Gaushala Road, Siwan, District – Siwan and then posted as Civil Surgeon, Saran at Chapra …… Respondent no.4 /Appellant Versus 1. Dr.Naresh Kumar s/o late Ram Charan Das, r/o village – Arai Benipur, P.S. – Daniawa, District – Patna …….Petitioner/Respondent 2. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health , Patna 3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Patna 4. Under Secretary, Department of Health, Patna ….. Respondents ================================================== APPEARANCE For the Appellant : Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Shankar Kr. Thakur, Advocate Mr. Kamal Kishore Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Amber Nath Banerjee, Advocate Mr. Mukul Pd. Singh, Advocate Mr. Arup Kumar Chongdar, AC to AAG II ================================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2 27/9/2010 I.A. No.8397 of 2010 This application under section 5 of the Limitation Act is made by the appellant for condonation of delay of 6 days occurred in filing the above Letters Patent Appeal. 2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the delay is condoned. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. LPA. No.1485 of 2010 Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 4th August 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in above CWJC. No.10520 of 2010, the respondent no.4 has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The grievance of the appellant is that though he was a party respondent and he was likely to be adversely affected if any relief were granted to the writ petitioner, no notice was issued to him. The order was made exparte against him. We have perused the record of the writ petition. There is no gainsaying that the impugned judgment and order was made exparte against the appellant. For the aforesaid reason alone, we allow this appeal. The impugned judgment and order dated 4th August 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC. No.10520 of 2010 is set aside. CWJC. No.10520 of 2010 is remitted to the learned Single Judge for hearing and decision afresh. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Interlocutory Application No.8398 of 2010 stands disposed of. Learned advocate Mr. Jitendra Singh states that there is no need to issue notice to the respondent 3 no.4 in the writ petition. The appellant – respondent no.4 will file his counter affidavit in the writ petition within two weeks from today. Neyaz/ ( R. M. Doshit,CJ.) (Jyoti Saran, J.)