IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.331 of 2010 ***** Upendra Kumar, Son of Shri Yogendra Singh, resident of Mohalla-Nurani Bagh Colony, P.S. Aalamganj, District-Patna. …. …. Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Department of Disaster Management through the District Magistrate, Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Patna. …. …. Respondents/Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, Standing Counsel-XXI ---------- 2. 19.2.2010. I.A. No. 1683 of 2010: - This is an application for condonation of delay of 12 days in preferring the appeal. Having heard Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient ground exists for condoning the delay. The delay in preferring the appeal is condoned. Interlocutory application stands disposed of. L.P.A. No. 331 of 2010: - As we have condoned the delay in preferring the appeal, we are inclined to take up the appeal for - 2 - admission. On consent of the learned counsel for the parties it is finally heard. In this appeal, the sustainability of the order dated 24.12.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 12238 of 2009 is called in question. The learned Single Judge has passed the following order: - “Certain materials have emerged from the record by which court prima facie gets a strong feeling that things have been tampered and the documents of forged kind have been utilized for making out a case in the present court. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to adjudicate the claim of the petitioner at this stage. Let the State take steps for institution of a criminal case first. The outcome of the criminal investigation will decide further course of action in the matter. The writ application is dismissed.” Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we agree with the learned Single Judge that the writ petition deserved to be dismissed but there was no justification for directing institution of a criminal case for the simple reason the documents that have been brought on record pertain to some proceeding or other, and hence, it cannot be said that - 3 - there was any kind of forgery. They may not be able to sustain the submission put forth by the petitioner but the concept of forgery does not get attracted . We may hasten to clarify, we have concurred with the order of dismissal as the appellant had approached the Court on the earlier occasion putting forth a money claim which was dismissed, and, in L.P.A. No. 528 of 2006 vide order dated 12.9.2006, this Court had permitted the petitioner to institute a civil suit or seek appropriate legal remedy as advised in law then the writ petition could not have been filed for the second time. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Pawan/ (Dipak Misra, CJ) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)