IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11807 of 2005 SURESH NARAIN PANDEY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 3.3.2009 Heard counsel for the parties. In the opinion of this Court, this writ application against an order passed by the Collector of the district in an appeal, could have been, in the first instance, subjected to the same authority by seeking restoration of the appeal inasmuch as by the impugned order dated 26.8.2003, the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed for default. This Court would find that as a matter of fact a Haziri was filed before the Collector but when probably the case was called out, there was none to represent the petitioner and that is how the case of the petitioner got dismissed for default. In that view of the matter, the petitioner, instead of moving this Court, could have moved before the Collector of the district for recall of his order because the said order was not on merits. That be so, this Court would give liberty to the petitioner to approach the 2 Collector of the district and it is expected that the Collector, instead of becoming too technical, would restore the appeal and decide the same expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of restoration petition by the petitioner. With the aforementioned observations, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)