IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1248 of 1996 RAJENDRA CHOUDHARY Son of Sri Badri Choudhary resident of Village – Gopalganj, P O Ghosi, District Jahanabad At present Circle Officer, Pakur,District Pakur …Appellant Versus 1. GOURI SHANKAR BHAGAT Son of Bhubneshwar Prasad Bhagat, resident of Harindanga Bazar, PS Pakur, Town and District Pakur 2. The State of Bihar 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, District Pakur 4. The Subdivisional Officer, Pakur, District Pakur 5. Md. Jamil, Son of Late Abdul Hamid, resident of Pakur Harindanga Bazar, PS Pakur, District Pakur ….Respondents -------- . 04- 28.10.2009 Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Choudhary for the appellant, Mr. Satyabrat Verma for the State of Jharkhand, and Mr. Piyush Lal, learned Assistant Counsel to AAG III for the State of Bihar and its functionaries. Respondent no.4 of CWJC No. 9210 of 1996 (Gauri Shankar Bhagat vs. State of Bihar & Ors.), has preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent Appeal of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, and is aggrieved by the order dated 3.10.1996, whereby the writ petition was allowed with costs imposed on respondent no.4 therein (appellant herein) for his high-handed action against the writ petitioner. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant. The writ petitioner was a tenant in the house of respondent no.5 (Md.Jamil). The respondent authorities, including the present appellant then functioning as Circle Officer, Pakur, in collusion with the landlord, - 2 - had forcibly evicted the writ petitioner. The writ petition was allowed on the ground that he was forcibly dispossessed from the tenanted premises, and his possession was restored before the writ petition was disposed of. Deeply aggrieved by the conduct of the respondent authorities including the appellant herein, the learned Single Judge imposed a cost of Rs.2,500/- against the respondent authorities including the present appellant. Hence this appeal at the instance of respondent no.4 of the writ petition with respect to that part of the order whereby costs have been imposed against him. 3. It is evident on a perusal of the order of the learned writ court that the present appellant had engaged himself in a very high- handed manner, was a gross abuse of his official position in collusion with the landlord, as a result of which costs of Rs.2,500/- was imposed on him. We find no justification for the appeal. It is indeed a frivolous appeal and is accordingly dismissed. Let the appellant deposit the costs forthwith. ( S K Katriar ) ( Kishore K Mandal ) mrl