IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.297 of 2010 Upendra Choudhary, son of Late Ganesh Choudhary, resident of village-Itahari, Post Office-Fudkichak, Police Station-Gogri, District-Khagaria. ….PETITIONER/APPELLANT. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Munger. 4. The Executive Engineer, Rural Development Department, Special Division (Pra-Aa) Munger. 5. The Superintendent of Engineer, Rural Development Department Special Division (Pra-A), Munger. . RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS ----------- 02. 15.02.2010 I.A.No.1464 of 2010 This is an application for condonation of delay of 24 days in preferring the appeal. Having heard Mr. Raj Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Md. Anis Akhtar, learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the considered opinion sufficient grounds do exist for condonation of delay and, accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal stands condoned. The interlocutory application is, accordingly, allowed. L.P.A.No.297 of 2010 As we have condoned the delay, we are inclined to take up the appeal for the purpose of admission and final - 2 - disposal. It is submitted by Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant that an amount was advanced to him in the capacity of junior engineer for carrying out some construction work which was done but the authorities without taking notice of the same proceeded to realise the amount which is impermissible in law. It is contended by him that the learned Single Judge has fallen into error by observing that the appellant has remedy within the department to approach the authority. Mr. Akhtar, learned counsel for the State supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge. On a perusal of the averments made in the writ petition as well as in the memorandum of appeal it is noticeable that the appellant has taken a categorical statement that the amount that was disbursed in his favour for the purpose of carrying out the construction work which had been done. Thus, the stand of the appellant is that there was no fiscal irregularities or any kind of non-expenditure of the amount. The same being the question of fact it cannot be gone into under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the aforesaid, we direct the appellant to - 3 - prefer an explanation by giving the details to the competent authority within a period of six weeks from today and the said authority, as agreed to by Mr. Akhtar, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant-petitioner shall determine whether the work in question had been undertaken, the amount had been expended and whether the amount has fallen due to be realised from the appellant. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of filing of the explanation. Till the matter is finalised, no coercive steps shall be taken for realisation of the amount from the appellant. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above and the order passed by the learned Single Judge stands modified. There shall be no order as to costs. Sunil (Dipak Misra, C.J.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)