In Nand Kishore Chaudhary vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar passed a 4-page long order dated April 17, 2026, wherein, it concluded:..."it is clear that on filing/remitting the Review, it was required to be decided on merits though it has been again dismissed on the ground of delay. The order passed by the High Court is primarily contrary to the directions of this Court and therefore, it deserves to be set aside and accordingly, is set aside. 5) In view of order dated 27.08.2018, we direct to restore the Civil Review No. 486 of 2017 and to decide the same on merits."
The appeal arose out of 3-page long order dated August 1, 2024 passed by Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices P. B. Bajanthri and Alok Kumar Pandey in Nand Kishore Chaudhary vs.The State Of Bihar through Chief Secretary & Ors. (2024), dismissing a Civil Review No. 486 of 2017 in Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) No. 30 of 2014 preferred by the appellant on the ground of delay of about 3 years and 23 days. The order was authored by Justice Bajanthri. The other four respondents were: 2. The Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Government of Bihar, Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Patna, The Collector, Supaul and the Rehabilitation Officer, Koshi Project, Supaul. The Civil review was filed December 12, 2017 and registered on December 12, 2017. Prior to this Civil Review No.486 of 2017 in Letters Patent Appeal No.30 of 2014 was dismissed by the Division Bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice S. Kumar by its order dated March 23, 2018. The order reads:"...we find no error apparent on the face value of record warranting any review. This application is dismissed."
Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Kurian Jospeh and Sanjay Kishan Kaul passed a 2-page long order dated August 27, 2018, wherein it set aside the order by Division Bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice S. Kumar by its order dated March 23, 2018. Its order reads:"Delay condoned. The petitioner sought appointment as a displaced person on account of flooding of Koshi river. The High Court rejected his petition on the ground that there was no evidence available on the fact that he was a displaced person. The petitioner filed a Review Petition before the High Court inviting reference to the High Court to the orders dated 04.04.2012, 11.06.2012 and 06.08.2012, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner is a displaced person. However, the Review Petition has been dismissed stating that no grounds were made out for review. The attempt on the Review Petition was to invite the reference of the High Court to some crucial materials which have not been considered in the main Judgment. We have gone through the Review Petition and we find that the main ground taken in the Review Petition is non-consideration of the materials which are referred to above regarding his status as a displaced person. In that view of the matter, we set aside the order dated 23.03.2018 passed by the High Court in Civil Review No. 486 of 2017 and remit the matter to the High Court with a request to consider the Review Petition on merits."
Subsequently, Justice Bajanthri's 2-page long order dated March 28, 2024 was passed which recorded that the Civil Review is with reference to remand by Supreme Court's order dated August 27, 2018.
The order by Justice Bajanthri reads: "Review petitioner counsel could not apprise this Court what are the documents to establish that Vishnu Choudhary was holder of the submerger of certain land in the flooding of Kosi river and thereafter, Maluki Choudhary, who was father of the petitioner and son of Vishnu Choudhary. In the absence of these material information one cannot draw inference that petitioner’s grandfather Vishnu Choudhary land’s was merged in flooding of Kosi river. 2. Therefore, he is hereby directed to produce necessary material including genealogy tree prepared by the Revenue Authorities. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner has to apprise this Court under the employment scheme for rehabilitation persons he has to establish that grandson is entitled to claim employment with reference to a particular scheme existing as on the date of his initial appointment. State counsel is also directed to provide scheme of appointment to such of those displaced persons in Kosi River flooding."
The High Court's order dated April 25, 2024 recorded that petitioner submitted "a Policy decision of the State Government dated 30th January, 1987, in particularly, Clause (7) it relates to reservation of 15% to such of those displaced persons on account of Kosi River Flood."
After hearing counsel appearing for both the sides, without referring to the judgment in detail, the Supreme Court recorded: "it is suffice to observe the previous order passed by this Court on 27.08.2018 in Nand Kishore Chaudhary v. The State of Bihar & Ors. (SLP (C)Diary No. 24029 of 2018), wherein this Court directed as under: “The petitioner sought appointment as a displaced person on account of flooding of Koshi river. The High Court rejected his petition on the ground that there was no evidence available on the fact that he was a displaced person. The petitioner filed a Review Petition before the High Court inviting reference to the High Court to the orders dated 04.04.2012, 11.06.2012 and 06.08.2012, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner is a displaced person. However, the Review Petition has been dismissed stating that no grounds were made out for review. The attempt on the Review Petition was to invite the reference of the High Court to some crucial materials which have not been considered in the main Judgment. We have gone through the Review Petition and we find that the main ground taken in the Review Petition is non-consideration of the materials which are referred to above regarding his status as a displaced person. In that view of the matter, we set aside the order dated 23.03.2018 passed by the High Court in Civil Review No. 486 of 2017 and remit the matter to the High Court with a request to consider the Review Petition on merits.”
In the penultimate paragraph of its order dated 17, 2926, the Supreme Court observed: "We request the High Court to decide the Civil Review at the earliest and as far as possible, within a period of six months."
No comments:
Post a Comment