IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.262 of 2009 RAMESHWAR PANDEY S/o Late Mahangu Pandey, Village Pakri Mishrain, PO Bairiya, PS Kateya, Distt. Gopalganj, presently residing at F-103, PC Colony, Kankarbagh, Patna -800020 ….. Petitioner-Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIAHR through the Commissioner- cum-Secretary, Department of Industries, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The Chairman, Finance (Bureau of Public Enterprises) Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The Additional Collector, Patna 4. The SubDivisional Officer, Patna City, Patna 5. The Block Development Officer, Fatuha, Distt. Patna 6. The Circle Officer, Fatuha, District Patna 7. The Sub-Treasury Officer, Patna City, Distt. Patna 8. The Executive Engineer, Patna City, Path Pramandal Path Nirman Vibhag, Tulsi Mandi, Gulzarbagh, Patna -7 9. Patna Industrial Area Development Authority through its Chairman, Udyog Bhawan, East Gandhi Maidan, Patna - 800004 10. The Managing Director, Patna Industrial Area Development Authority, Udyog Bhawan, East Gandhi Maidan, Patna -800004 11. The Secretary, Patna Industrial Area Development Authority, Udyog Bhawan, East Gandhi Maidan, Patna - 800004 12. The Collector, Patna District, Patna …….Respondents-Opp.Parties ----------- 03- 22/09/2010 Heard Mr. Raj Narain Mishra for the petitioner, Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, learned Standing Counsel 16 for respondent nos. 1 to 8, and 12, and Mr. Lalit Kishore for respondent nos. 9 to 11. The appellant presses IA No.7987 of 2009 filed under the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act praying therein that the delay of 16 days in preferring the civil review application may be condoned, and the civil 2 review application may be considered on merits. 2. It appears to us on a perusal of the condonation application that it is a case of gross laches and negligence. The delay of 16 days has not been explained. Furthermore, the appeal was dismissed by order dated 20.8.2009, paragraph 2 of which is reproduced hereinbelow:- “2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the appellant superannuated with effect from 31.1.1994, yet he is persisting with the protracted litigation. We express our strong displeasure on the appellant’s conduct in burdening this Court with most unwanted matters. We entirely agree with the order of the learned single Judge that the rules of the State Government do not straightway apply to the employees of the Authority. Secondly, even if it were applicable it needs permission of the Authority and can, inter alia, be granted in a situation if the residential accommodation is not available at the place of transfer. In the present case, the Managing Director of the Authority has clearly stated in his order that residential accommodation was freely available at Fatuah and there was no justification to allow him to retain the Government quarter in Patna. Indeed the order of the Managing Director was passed much after the appellant’s retirement, notwithstanding which he is persisting with this matter to the utter harassment of this Court.” Therefore, the petitioner has no case on merits also. 3 3. This civil review application is accordingly dismissed on both the counts. ( S K Katriar ) ( Jyoti Saran ) mrl