Patna High Court CWJC No.11216 of 2011 (2) dt.15-09-2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11216 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Sanju Kumari W/O Sri Vinod Kumar Village Kistipur, P.O. & Panchayat Sanda, Block Dhanarua, Dist. Patna. .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Director, Department Of Welfare, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Patna. 4. The District Welfare Office,R Patna. 5. The District Programme Officer, Patna. 6. The Sub Divisional Office, Patna. 7. The Block Development Officer, Dhanarua, Dist. Patna. 8. The Child Development Project Officer, Block Dhanarua, Dist. Patna. 9. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Sanda Block Dhanarua, Dist. Patna. 10. The Panchayat Sachiv, Gram Panchayat Raj Sanda, Block Dhanarua, Dist. Patna. 11. Manju Kumari Sinha D/O Shri Laxmi Prasad Singh Village Parsa, P.O. & Panchayat Sanda, Dist. Patna. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== For the Petitioner : Mr. Ved Prakash, Adv. For the State : Mr. Satish Kr. Sinha, A.C. to S.C.1 ====================================================== 2 15-09-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and for the State. The Court is not inclined to interfere with the order contained in Annexure- 17, which is the order passed by the District Programme Officer, Patna, since it does not suffer from any infirmity patent on record. Petitioner had earlier come to the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5487 of 2008. A categorical order was passed by the Court that in case petitioner files an application before the District Patna High Court CWJC No.11216 of 2011 (2) dt.15-09-2011 Programme Officer within 10 days from today, the authority was required to hear all concerned including respondent no. 11. According to the petition, the application filed before the authority was much after the so-called 10 days fixed by the Court a fact not denied. Even is the submission of the counsel for the petitioner is accepted that on an earlier occasion an application was moved, that too is dated 13.02.2010 which was beyond the time scheduled fixed by the High Court. Since there was a mandate of the High Court and the petitioner was required to follow it, the respondents did no wrong by rejecting the application. Accordingly the writ is dismissed. Bhardwaj/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)