CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.1151 OF 2001 In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ---------- 1. Saraswati Devi, wife of Late Ram Pabitra Tiwary @ Pavitra Tiwary (deceased) 2. Upendra Kumar Tiwary 3. Arvind Kumar Tiwary 4. Rakesh Kumar Tiwary, all sons of Late Ram Pabitra Tiwary 5. Meera Devi wife of Late Pankaj Kumar Tiwary 6. Sonam Kumari 7. Sonal Kumari 8. Suhani Kumari, petitioners 6 to 7, Minor daughters of late Pankaj Kumar Tiwary @ Pankaj Kumar and minors are under the guardianship of their natural mother Meera Devi All Resident of village Radhaur, P.S. Sursand, District Sitamarhi, at present residing in Ward No. 29, Mohalla Mehsol, Police Station Sitamarhi, District Sitamarhi-------------------------------------Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna 3. The District Collector, Sitamarhi 4. The Additional Collector, Sitamarhi------------------------Respondents For The Petitioners :M/s Satyendra Narayan Singh & Srikant Sharan Singh, Advocates For The Respondents :Mr. Ajay, S.C.-3 (Ceiling) P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA V.N.Sinha,J. An affidavit has been filed by Arvind Kumar Tiwary, petitioner no.3 stating that his mother, Saraswati Devi, petitioner no.1 left for heavenly abode during the pendency of this application on 27.1.2005, leaving behind the heirs, who are already on record as petitioner nos. 2 to 8. 2. In the circumstances, name of deceased - 2 - petitioner no.1 be expunged from the array of the parties and the matter may proceed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. 4. petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 1.11.2000, passed in Revision Case No. 209 of 1985, Annexure-9, whereunder request of the petitioners to grant one more unit for Pankaj Kumar Tiwary has been rejected. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that earlier Pankaj Kumar Tiwary was allowed unit under orders dated 1.7.1983, Annexure-1, against which the State filed appeal No. 4 of 1984, which was allowed and the unit allowed for Pankaj Kumar Tiwary was cancelled under orders dated 7.5.1985, Annexure-2, whereafter matter was taken in revision, vide Revision Case Nos. 208, 209 of 1985. By passing an interim order dated 21.6.1988, the Board of Revenue directed the Collector, Sitamarhi to get Pankaj Kumar Tiwary examined by a Medical Board and submit report about his age on 9.9.1970. In compliance of the orders of the Board of Revenue dated 21.6.1988, Pankaj Kumar Tiwary was examined by the Medical Board on - 3 - 19.2.1992. The report of the Board was submitted under memo no. 214 dated 19.2.1992, which is contained in Annexure-4 to this application and in the light of the findings recorded in the report of the Medical Board, Collector of the district under orders dated 16.1.1996 reported that on 9.9.1970, Pankaj Kumar Tiwary was 19 years of age. The order of the Collector, Sitamarhi is contained in Annexure-6 to this application. The Board of Revenue under orders dated 22.9.1997, Annexure-7, however, dismissed the revision, as it did not accept the age of Pankaj Kumar Tiwary recorded in the medical report and in the order of the Collector, Sitamarhi, petitioners challenged the order of the Board of Revenue dated 22.9.1997, Annexure-7 before this Court in C.W.J.C. Nos. 1103 of 1998 and 1077 of 1998, which were disposed of under orders dated 17.8.1998, Annexure-8 to this application observing as follows in paragraph 8: "As in the present case, the aforesaid procedure was not followed by the revisional authority, I set aside the impugned revisional order passed in Revision Case No. 209/89 so far as it relates to decision with respect to age of petitioner- Pankaj Kumar Tiwary is concerned, and remit the matter to the revisional authority to decide the same - 4 - on the basis of the report submitted by the Medical Board. If the revisional authority wants to differ with such finding or wants to know whether the same is based on ossification test, or not, in that case, the authority will have to give reason for the same and, if necessary, may call for a report of ossification report. If no ossification test was done by the Medical Board, the revisional authority should remit the matter to the Medical Board for a fresh test after following the ossification test of said petitioner." Before ossification test could be done on Pankaj Kumar Tiwary, he left for heavenly abode and thereafter the Board of Revenue examined other contemporaneous documents, including the age certificate issued by the Executive Officer of Sitamarhi Municipality and rejected the contention of the petitioners that Pankaj Kumar Tiwary was an adult on 9.9.1970. 6. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that ossification test could not be performed on Pankaj Kumar Tiwary on account of his death, as such, authorities should have accepted the medical report dated 19.2.1992, Annexure-4, as it was their duty to have got Pankaj Kumar Tiwary examined through ossification test or any other test so as to ascertain his age on 9.9.1970. - 5 - 7. I regret not to accept the aforesaid submission. If on account of death, Pankaj Kumar Tiwary could not be examined scientifically and his age could not be assessed scientifically, the authorities cannot be held responsible for such non-examination. The contemporaneous documents about the age of Pankaj Kumar Tiwary has been thoroughly considered in paragraph 4 of the order dated 1.11.2000 and having considered each of contemporaneous documents, the Board of Revenue has given reasons for rejecting each of the documents. I do not find any illegality in the order of the Board of Revenue dated 1.11.2000, Annexure-9. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. Patna High Court Dated 11thMay,2010 NAFR (Arjun) (V.N. Sinha, J.)