IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6580 of 2006 RAM SINGHASAN SINGH, S/O- LATE RANG NATH SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE- KATHATAR @ KASTAKAR, P.S.- RAJPUR, DISTRICT- BUXAR ---(OPPOSITE PARTY-APPELLANT)-PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COLLECTOR, BUXAR. 2. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE- CUM-COLLECTOR, BUXAR. 3. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, BUXAR. 4. SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, BUXAR. 5. LABOUR INSPECTOR, RAJPUR, P.O. & P.S.- RAJPUR, DISTRICT- BUXAR ---RESPONDENTS 1ST SET. 6. SHYAM BEHARI RAM, S/O- SHRI LALLAN RAM. 7. SADANAND ALIAS BHUWAN RAM, BOTH SONS OF SHYAM BEHARI RAM. 8. AKCHHAI RAM. ALL 6 TO 8 ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- BHALUHAN, P.O.- RAJPUR, P.S.- RAJPUR, DISTRICT- BUXAR. 9. KANHAIA RAJBHAR, S/O- JAGARNATH RAJBHAR. 10. GANESH RAJBHAR, S/O- DASIA RAJBHAR. 11. GANPAT RAJBHAR, S/O- MURAT RAJBHAR. ALL 9 TO 11 RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- JALILPUR, P.O. & P.S.- RAJPUR, DISTRICT- BUXAR (APPELLANTS-RESPONDENTS IST SET)- RESPONDENTS 2ND SET. ----------- 3. 06.04.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is a brick kiln owner. He is aggrieved by the order dated 17.06.2005 passed by Additional Collector, Buxar in Minimum Wage Appeal No. 01/95, whereunder the said appeal has been dismissed as having filed beyond the time granted by this Court under orders dated 30.03.1995 passed in C.W.J.C.No. 12746 of 1993 and other analogous matters, Annexure-4. He is also aggrieved by the order dated 03.03.2006 passed by the Collector, Buxar in Case No. 64 of 2005 Miscellaneous, Annexure-1(a), whereunder challenge made by the petitioner to the aforesaid order dated 17.06.2005 has been rejected. It appears earlier petitioner had challenged the order 2 dated 29.10.1993, Annexure-3 directing him to pay minimum wages to Private Respondent Nos. 6-11 by filing C.W.J.C.No. 12746 of 1993 and other analogous matters which was disposed of under orders dated 30.03.1995, Annexure-4 directing the petitioner to file appeal within two weeks from 30.3.1995, the date on which the aforesaid writ petitions were disposed of. Petitioner could not file the writ petition as his application for grant of certified copy of the order dated 30.3.1995 was considered and certified copy of the order dated 30.3.1995 was issued to him on 01.05.1995. 3. It is submitted that requisition for grant of certified copy of the order dated 30.03.1995 was filed by the petitioner on 04.04.1995 i.e. within four days of the order dated 30.3.1995 and the same was considered by the High Court office and folio was notified on 28.4.1995 which was also promptly complied with. After filing the folios on 29.04.1995 the copy was made ready and delivered on 01.05.1995, as such, he could not have filed the appeal within two weeks from 30.3.1995. 4. From perusal of the order dated 30.03.1995, Annexure-4 it is quite evident that the certified copy of the order dated 30.3.1995 was applied for on 04.04.1995 and the folio was demanded from the petitioner on 28.04.1995 which he complied on 29.4.1995 and the copy of the order dated 30.3.1995 was made ready for delivery on 01.05.1995 and was also 3 delivered to the petitioner on the same day i.e. 01.05.1995. The question still remains that if the copy was not being made available to him, he should have either filed a petition in the High Court for extending the time granted for filing the appeal or should have filed the appeal before the Additional Collector without enclosing the copy of the order dated 30.03.1995 with a statement that no sooner the copy is made available to him, he shall file the same. 5. Petitioner having neither applied for extension of the time granted under order dated 30.03.1995 nor filed the appeal without appending the certified copy of the order dated 30.3.1995 , it is difficult for me to find fault with the order of the Additional Collector dated 17.06.2005 dismissing the appeal as, in my opinion, the Additional Collector lacked jurisdiction to extend the time granted by the High Court. The Collector, Buxar before whom order dated 17.06.2005 was challenged also could not have entertained the appeal against the order dated 17.06.2005 as admittedly the said appeal was filed beyond the time granted by the High Court and Collector also lacked jurisdiction to condone the delay. Accordingly, without finding fault with the aforesaid two orders passed by the authorities below, I am of the view that the appeal filed by the petitioner in compliance of the orders of the High Court dated 30.03.1995 should be considered on merit but 4 before such appeal is considered on merit petitioner is directed to deposit the cost of Rs. 6,000/- which should be deposited in the office of the Additional Collector, Buxar along with a certified copy of this order and after the said amount is received, the Collector shall issue notice to the concerned respondents and after the respondents appear the amount shall be paid to them and only after payment of the amount to the respondents, the appeal filed by the petitioner in compliance of the order of the High Court dated 30.03.1995 shall be heard. 6. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. 7. Requisition for grant of certified copy of this order should be filed by the petitioner by tomorrow. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)