IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.643 of 2009 Gyaneshwar Prasad,Son of Sri Bhubneshwar Pandit, resident of Village- Naya Tola Koshopur, Post-Jamalpur, Police Station- Jamalpur, District- Munger. ... Appellant. Versus 1. The Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board, Pant Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna through its Managing Director. 2. The Managing Director, Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board, Pant Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Gopalganj, through its Market Secretary. 4. The Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Jehanabad through its Merket Secretary. 5. Sri Bhupendra Narayan Singh, Son of not known at present working as Market Supervisor. 6. Sri Kishori Lal Prasad, Son of not known at present working as Head Clerk. Respondent no.5 and 6 are through the Managing Director of Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board, Pant Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 7. The State of Bihar. 8. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Main Secretariat, Patna. 9. The Agricultural Production Commissioner- cum- Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 10. The Finance Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. .... Respondents. ----------- 03- 29.06.2009 Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra for the appellant, and Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, learned Standing Counsel No.16. The matter has today been placed under the heading „For orders (on petitions)‟ with two interlocutory applications. With consent of the parties, the 2 matter is taken on Board for admission along with all the interlocutory applications. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant presses I.A. No.3082 of 2009, filed under the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. It is stated therein that the writ petition (C.W.J.C. No.6417 of 2002) was disposed of on 27.1.2009, and the present appeal was filed on 8.5.2009. There was thus a delay of 47 days in preferring the appeal. In view of the statements made in this condonation application and the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant in support thereof, we are not convinced about the explanation offered to explain the delay. It appears to be a case of laches and negligence. I.A. No.3082 of 2009 is accordingly rejected. 3. We have also considered the matter on merits. The appellant was an employee of the Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board which has been repealed by the Bihar Agricultural Produce Market (Repeal) Act, 2006. The present appellant raised the grievance in the writ petition that he was deprived of his promotion under the old dispensation. The 3 Bihar Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1960 has since been repealed by the Bihar Agriculture Produce Market (Repeal) Act, 2006. It is significant to note that the aims and objects, and the duties and functions, under the old Act have been completely given up by the Legislature, and have not been assigned to any other body. In that view of the matter, it is not possible for us to entertain a claim for promotion under the old dispensation. In fact, the Legislature has taken a very lenient view in the Repeal Act by providing Section 6, the relevant portion of which is reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference: “6(ii) The State Government shall constitute a committee of Secretaries consisting of three Secretaries who shall prepare detail scheme of absorption, retirement, compulsory retirement or voluntary retirement, other service conditions of officers and employees of the Board and the Committee. Scheme prepared by group of Secretaries shall be placed before the State Government within two months from the date of enforcement of the present Act. The State Government shall thereafter approve the scheme.” 4. We are of the view that in view of the terms of the Repeal Act, coupled with the over-arching reality that the aims and objects, 4 and the duties and functions, under the quondam Act have not been assigned to any other body, a dispute of the present nature under the old dispensation, cannot be entertained. The same is, in our estimation, beyond the scope of Section-6 (ii), the relevant portion of which has been set out hereinabove. 5. The appeal is dismissed on merits as well as on delay. (S K Katriar, J.) (Jyoti Saran, J.) S.K.Pathak/