IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1622 of 2009 1. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, THROUGH THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, PATNA. 2. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, WEST GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA-800 001. 3. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, AT ANTA GHAT, J.C. ROAD, PATNA. 4. ASST. GENERAL MANAGER,REGION-V,AMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, J.C. ROAD,PATNA. 5. ASST. GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGION-I, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, J.C.ROAD, PATNA. 6. BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, PAKRI ARRAH BRANCH, DISTRICT-BHOJPUR. -(RESPONDENTS) APPELLANTS Versus CHANDRA BHUSHAN KUMAR, S/O SHRI JAGAT NARAIN SINGH, R/O MOHALLA, PIRMUHANI (NEAR WATER TOWER) POLICE STATION-GANDHI MAIDAN, TOWN & DISTRICT-PATNA. (PETITIONER)- RESPONDENT 2 24.12.2009 I.A.No. 8604 of 2009 This is an application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. Regard being had to the assertions made and the nature of order we are going to pass in the main appeal, we condone the delay in preferring the appeal. The I.A. no. 8604 of 2009 is, accordingly, disposed of. L.P.A. no.1622 of 2009 In this intra court appeal the assail is to the order 2 dated 29th October, 2009 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC no. 9814 of 2009 whereby he in paragraph no.5 has directed thus: “Having heard counsel for the parties, I am of the view that at this stage, I grant one more opportunity to the competent authority of the State Bank of India to consider the submission raised in paragraph-27 of the writ application and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and while doing so the Bank should also consider the desirability of bringing back the petitioner to Patna. Appropriate orders in the light of this order be passed by the competent authority of the Bank as early as possible, in any case within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.” Having heard Mr. K.K. Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, and upon perusal of the order in entirety and specially the paragraph 5 which we have quoted hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that the learned single Judge has actually not issued any command for posting. Hence, no interference is called for. (Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) 3 AAhmad