CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.8558 OF 1998 In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ----------- 1. Dileep Choudhary, son of late Awdesh Narain Choudhary 2. Raj Kumar Choudhary son of late Awdesh Narain Choudhary 3. Sudhir Choudhary, son of Ratneshwar Choudhary 4. Ratneshwar Choudhary, son of Kumar Choudhary, Petitioners No. 1,2,3 and 4, are residents of village Barairi Behta, P.S. and Sub- Division, Pupari, District Sitamarhi 5. Shiv Shankar Prasad Thakur, son of late Janardan Prasad Thakur, resident of village Gosaipur, Dayanagar, P.S. Belsand, District Sitamarhi 6. Lalan Prasad Thakur, son of late Ram Sevak Prasad Thakur 7. Sunil Kumar Thakur, son of late Ram Sevak Prasad Thakur, petitioners No. 6 and 7, resident of village Dayanagar, P.S. Belsand, P.O. Ram Nagar Bagahi, District Sitamarhi -------------------------------------(Petitioners) Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar 3. District Collector, Sitamarhi 4. Additional Collector, Sitamarhi 5. Chachan Devi, wife of Late Raja Prasad Singh, resident of village Rewasri, P.S. and Anchal Riga, District Sitamarhi -----------------------------------(Respondents) For The Petitioner :Mr. Rajiv Nayan Singh, Advocate For The Respondent :Mr. Ajay, S.C.-3(Ceiling) P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA V.N. Sinha, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. Petitioners are assailing the order dated 14.1.1998, passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar in Revision Case Nos. 38, 39 and 40 of 1997, as contained in Annexure-9 series, whereunder the learned Member Board of Revenue, Bihar dismissed the revision application on the ground of limitation. 2 3. It appears, revision applications could not be filed within limitation period, as the son of one of the petitioners, namely, petitioner no.6, Lalan Prasad Thakur had suffered accident as also there was strike of the Non-Gazetted Employees in the Collectorate at Sitamarhi and the certified copy of the impugned order dated 17.2.1997, which was the subject matter of revision could not be obtained. The Member, Board of Revenue had asked the petitioners to obtain certificate from the Collector, Sitamarhi that there was strike of the Non-Gazetted Employees in the Collectorate leading to non-grant of certified copy of the impugned order dated 17.2.1997. In compliance of the direction of the Board of Revenue, petitioners requested the Collector, Sitamarhi for grant of certificate and their request was registered as Misc. Case No. 108 of 1997, petition whereof is contained in Annexure-8 series. In response to the orders passed in the said Misc. Case ultimately petitioners were given certificate dated 20.4.1998 certifying that there was strike in the Collectorate during the period between 19.2.1997 till 19.5.1997, which is also contained in Aannexure-8 series. Before certificate dated 20.4.1998 could be issued, the Board of Revenue dismissed the revision application on the ground of limitation. 4. By filing the present writ application, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that had the matter been considered on merit by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, occasion to file the present writ application may not have arisen. 5. Without going into the merits of the submission, only taking into account the aspect that the revision application has been dismissed on the ground of limitation, although there was strike of Non- 3 Gazetted Employees in the Collectorate at Sitamarhi and son of one of the petitioners suffered accident, I set aside the impugned order dated 14.1.1998, passed in Revision Case Nos. 38, 39 and 40 of 1997, Annexure-9 series with direction to the petitioners to appear before the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar on or before 19.4.2010, whereafter the Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar shall consider the limitation petition and condone the delay in filing the revision applications and proceed to decide the matter on merits, as early as possible, in any case within two months from the date of the appearance of the petitioners. 6. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. 7. It is made clear that if there is non-cooperation on the part of the petitioners, the Board of Revenue shall proceed ex parte. (V.N. Sinha, J.) Patna High Court Dated 30th March, 2010 NAFR (Arjun)