IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8444 of 2006 SHEO PRASAD SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 07.07.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Submission of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the impugned order contained in Annexure – 1 dated 21.05.2006, is the cause of grievance of the petitioner, which has been passed without any notice or following the statutory provisions in this regard. The Court refrains from stating anything on the two submissions as the same is matter of record and can be better appreciated at local level. Petitioner has not made out any special ground why the Court should entertain the present writ application by ignoring the statutory right of appeal under the statute. The writ application is disposed of with a direction upon the petitioner to file an appeal before the competent authority. The competent authority shall condone the delay in filing the said appeal, keeping in mind the period spent by the petitioner in pursuing the present remedy. It will also be in the interest of justice, if the petitioner cooperates, then the statutory authority would render his decision preferably within a period of three months. Rajeev/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)