IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1249 of 1996 Radhey Shyam Bihari Singh, Son of Late Ram Ashray Singh, Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, District- Pakur. .... Appellant. Versus 1. Gauri Shankar Bhagat, Son of Bhuvneshwar Prasad Bhagat, resident of Harindanga Bazar, P.S. Pakur Town, District Pakur. ... Respondent 1st Set. 2. State of Bihar. 3. The Sub-divisional Officer Pakur, District Pakur. 4. The Circle Officer, Pakur, District Pakur. .... Respondent 2nd set. 5. Md. Jamil, son of Late Abdul Hamid, resident of Pakur Harindanga Bazar, P.S. Pakur, District Pakur. .... Respondent 3rd set. ----------- 06. 17.9.2009 Heard Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha for the appellant, Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, learned Standing Counsel No.16 for respondent no.2, and Mr. Dhruba Mukherjee for respondent nos.3 and 4. Respondent no.2 of C.W.J.C. No.9210 of 1996 (Gauri Shankar Bhagat Vs. State of Bihar and others), has preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, and is aggrieved by the order dated 3.10.1996, whereby the writ petition was allowed with costs imposed on respondent no.2 therein (appellant herein) for his high-handed action against the writ petitioner. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant. The writ-petitioner was a tenant in the house of respondent no.5 ((Md. Jamil). The respondent authorities including the present 2 appellant in collusion with the landlord had forcibly evicted the writ petitioner from the tenanted premises. The writ petition was allowed on the ground that it was forcible dispossession of the petitioner, and his possession was restored before the writ petition was disposed of. Deeply aggrieved by the conduct of the respondent authorities including the appellant herein who was then functioning as Deputy Commissioner, the learned Single Judge imposed costs of Rs.2,500/- against the respondent authorities including the present appellant. Hence this appeal at the instance of respondent no.2 of the writ petition with respect to that part of the order whereby costs have been imposed against him. 3. It is evident on a perusal of the order of the learned writ court that the present appellant had engaged himself in a very high-handed manner, was a gross abuse of his official position in collusion with the landlord, as a result of which costs of Rs.2,500/- was imposed on him, with which we agree. We find no justification for the appeal. It is indeed a frivolous appeal and is accordingly dismissed. Let the appellant deposit the costs forthwith. (S K Katriar, J.) (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) S.K.Pathak/ 3