IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3917 of 2006 Bijendra Prasad Singh, son of Sri Surya Singh, resident of village Sundar Tola, P.O. Jitaura, P.S. Piro, District Bhojpur… . Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Food and Supply, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtas at Sasaram through its Secretary 3. The Secretary, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtas at Sasaram 4. Hanuman Singh, son of Late Jang Bahadur Singh, resident of Mohalla Takia Bazar, P.O. Takia Bazar, P.S. Sasaram, District Rohtas ……… ………… …. Respondents With C.W.J.C. No. 3932 of 2006 Bijendra Prasad Singh, son of Sri Surya Singh, resident of village Sundar Tola, P.O. Jitaura, P.S. Piro, District Bhojpur… . Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Food and Supply, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtas at Sasaram through its Secretary 3. The Secretary, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtas at Sasaram 4. Smt. Ramrati Maurya wife of Shri B.N. Singh Maurya, resident of village Lalganj, P.O. Sasaram, P.S. Sasaram, District Rohtas Respondents ----------- 02/ 24.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 11.5.2000, passed by the President, District Forum, Rohtas (Sasaram) in Complaint Case nos. 52, 54 of 1999 contained in Annexure-2 in both the writ 2 petitions. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the aforesaid order was passed without service of notice on the petitioner, who was opposite party no.2 in the aforesaid Complaint Case Nos. 52, 54 of 1999. It is also submitted that the notice published in the newspaper was also contrary to the provisions contained in Order 5 Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as the said notice was published in the newspaper, which has hardly any circulation in Bhojpur district. 4. Aforesaid submission can be better appreciated if petitioner prefers appeal against the order dated 11.5.2000, passed by the President, District Forum, Rohtas (Sasaram) in Complaint Case nos. 52, 54 of 1999 contained in Annexure-2 in both the writ petitions. 5. Let the petitioner file appeal before the State Commission challenging the aforesaid orders. The Commission is, however, requested to condone the delay in filing the appeal, as the writ petitions remained pending for more than four years in this 3 Court. For grant of stay of the coercive steps taken against the petitioner in the light of the order dated 23.1.2006, passed in Execution Case Nos. 8, 9 of 2005, petitioner should request the State Commission to pass appropriate stay order in the matter. 6. Both the writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of. Arjun/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)