IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.998 of 2009 1. Dr Sunil Kumar Singh, Son of Sri Maharana Pratap Singh, Chairman, BISCOMAUN, Patna 2. Raghubansh Narain Singh, Son of Late Ram Phal Singh, Director, BISCOMAUN, Patna 3. Ram Kalewar Pd. Singh, Son of Sri Ram Jatan Singh, Director, BISCOMAUN, Patna 4. Maheshwar Mishra, Son of Late Ram Shanehi Mishra, Director, BISCOMAUN, Patna 5. Anwar Ansari, Son of Ramzan Ansari, Director, BISCOMAUN, Patna 6. Urmila Devi, wife of Sri Narendra Sharma, Director, BISCOMAUN, Patna ..... (Petitioners) – Appellants VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar through its Secretary, Co-operative Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 2. The Hon’ble Minister, Co-operative Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Secretary, Co-operative Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 4. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar, Patna 5. The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Patna Division, Patna 6. Sri P.P.Ojha, Son of name not known, the Managing Director, Bihar State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Patna-cum- Administrator, BIOCOMAUN, Patna 7. Sri Ashok Kumar Jha, Son of name not known, Managing Director, BISCOMAUN, Patna ... (Respondents) ....Respondents --------- For Appellants : M/s Y.V. Giri, Sr. Advocate, Ishwari Singh, Kiran Kumari and Varun Kumar, Advocates For the State : M/s P.K.Shahi, Advocate General And Vikas Kumar, Asstt. Counsel For Respondent no.6: Mr Lalit Kishore, Sr Advocate ------- 2 2 7.8.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Advocate General on the preliminary issue of maintainability of this Letters Patent Appeal. By the impugned order under appeal the Writ Court after hearing the counsel for the parties allowed the prayer for adjournment for four weeks so that the pleadings may be completed on behalf of the respondents. It further recorded that no order is required to be passed on IA No.4509 of 2009 at this stage and the same will be considered after filing of the counter affidavits. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the IA in question contained a prayer on behalf of the writ petitioners to stay the impugned orders. In order to meet the preliminary objection regarding maintainability raised by the learned Advocate General, learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Deoraj V. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in (2004) 4 SCC 697. On the other hand, learned Advocate General placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of the State of Bihar V. Nityanand Datkullyar, 3 1997 (1) PLJR 121. Paragraph 12 of the Supreme Court judgment no doubt highlights the issue that in some cases, in the peculiar facts of those cases, it may be necessary to pass suitable interim orders otherwise the matter may become infructuous. However, that judgment is not an authority on the preliminary issue regarding maintainability of this appeal in view of nature of the order under appeal. So far as judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of the State of Bihar V. Nityanand Datkullyar relied upon by learned Advocate General is concerned, that explicitly considers Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of this Court and has explained the expression “judgment” in Clause 10 of the Letters Patent to imply an order which effectively decides some right or liability in controversy between the parties to the main proceedings, irrespective of the fact whether such an order is final or at an interlocutory stage. In the facts of the case and on the basis of aforesaid Division Bench judgment of this Court which places reliance upon a Supreme Court judgment reported 4 in AIR 1981 SC 1786 (Shah Babulal Khimji V. Jayaben D. Kania and another), we have no option but to hold that the order under appeal does not meet the test of being a judgment and hence, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against such an order. This Letters Patent Appeal is, therefore, dismissed on the preliminary ground that the Appeal is not maintainable. It is expected that after four weeks the Writ Court shall apply itself to the merits of the case of the respective parties and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ) (Anjana Prakash, J.) sk