IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.776 of 2010 MUKESH KUMAR S/O LATE MUNI LAL R/O VILL.- AHIRAULIA, P.S.KOTWA, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI. …..RESPONDENT/APPELLANT. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, EAST CHAMPARAN 3. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BLOCK KOTWA, EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI. 4. THE SARPANCH, PANCHAYAT RAJ AHIRWALIA BLOCK KOTWA, MOTIHARI, DISTRICT-EAST CHAMPARAN. 5. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ, AHIRWALIA, BLOCK KOTWA, DISTT.- MOTIHARI …..RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS. 6. RAVI SHASTRI S/O RAJ BANSHI PRASAD, R/O VILL.- RAJAPUR, AHIRWALIA, P.S. KOTWA, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI. …. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT. ----------- For the appellant : Mr. Vijay Shankar Shrivastava, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Syed Arshad Alam, S.C –IV. No.1 to 5 For the respondent no.6 : Mr. Dipak Kumar, Advocate. ------- 03. 06.05.2010 I.A.No.4129 of 2010 This is an application for condonation of delay of 100 days in preferring the appeal. We have heard Mr. Vijay Shankar Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Syed Arshad Alam, learned standing counsel-IV for the State and Mr. Dipak Kumar, learned counsel for the - 2 - respondent no.6, namely Ravi Shastri, the real contesting party. Regard being had to the assertions made in the application for condonation of delay, we are of the considered opinion sufficient grounds do exist for condonation of delay and, accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal stands condoned. I.A. stands allowed. L.P.A.No.776 of 2010 As we have condoned the delay, we are inclined to take up the appeal for admission and final disposal. On consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is finally heard. In this present intra-court appeal, the assail is to the order dated 25.11.2009 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No.15071 of 2009. The writ petition was preferred by the 6th respondent herein for giving effect to the order dated 18.06.2009 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Motihari who by the aforesaid order had set aside the appointment of the present appellant in the post of Secretary, Gram Kachari in Panchayat Raj, Ahirwalia Block-Kotwa, District - 3 - Motihari. Ordinarily, the direction given by the learned single Judge would have been treated to have flaw-less, but the said direction was issued without issuing notice to the appellant. It is worth noting the direction to implement the order dated 18.06.2009 passed by the Sub-divisional Officer, Motihari had its own peculiarity. The Sub-divisional Officer, Motihari on the basis of the complaint made by the respondent no.6 herein had issued notice to the Sarpanch of the village and not to the present appellant, who was the real affected person as his appointment was challenged. The said position is not disputed at the Bar. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant was not heard at any point of time and has been visited with an adverse order. Thus, we set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge and quash the order passed by the Sub- divisional Officer, Motihari dated 18.06.2009, contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition (Annexure-5 to the present appeal) and direct the said authority shall dispose of the proceeding afresh within a period of four months - 4 - from the date of receipt of the order passed today. To cut-short the delay, it is directed the appellant and the respondent no.6 or their representatives shall appear before the concerned Sub-divisional Officer on 17th of May, 2010 on which date the said authority shall give another date and eventually finalise the matter as directed hereinabove. Till the matter is finally heard, the appellant shall continue to work as his appointment as on today holds good. We may hasten to clarify we have not expressed any opinion with regard to merits of the case. Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal is allowed, but without any order as to costs. Sunil (Dipak Misra, C.J.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)