Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.4285 of 2018 In Letters Patent Appeal No.1211 of 2016 ======================================================
Md. Wasimuddin Son of Late Salimiddin, Resident of Mohalla-Raham Khan, Post-Lalbag, P.S.--Laheriya Sarai,District Darbhanga.
... ... Petitioner Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Industrial Development Commissioner, Industries Department BIhar at New-Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Director, Industries Department, Government of BIhar at New Secretariat, Patna.
3. The Chairman, Bihar Industries Area Development Authority Udyog Bhawan (East Gandhi Maidan), Patna.
4. The Managing Director, the BIhar Industrial Area Development Authority Udyog Bhawan (East Gandhi Maidan), Patna.
5. The Secretary, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Udyog Bhawan (East Gandhi Maidan)Patna.
6. The Executive Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority Regional Officer at Muzaffarpur, Bhagalpur.
7. The Executive Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority Regional Officer at Bhagalpur.
8. The Proceeding Officer, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority Udyog Bhagwan (East Gandhi Maidan), Patna.
9. The Placing Officer, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority Udyog Bhawan (East Gandhi Maidan), Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s ======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.
For BIADA : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Yogendra Prasad Sinha, AAG-7 ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)
Date : 26-06-2024 None appears for the petitioner.
2. The present M.J.C. is filed for modification of order dated 17.03.2015 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3394 of 2014. For the purpose of modification of the aforementioned order, in para-2, it is stated as under:
“2. That on page 2 at 7th line from bottan “with liberty to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law” it is stated that order dated 05.05.2009 is annexure-8 at Page 56, it is evident that respondent BIADA urged before the Court that the respondent retain the liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law, if they so desire. The Court observed “what the authority may do or may not do Subsequently is for the authority to decide. and Not for this Court todwell upon or observe at this stage”.
3. The aforementioned reasons for modification amounts to review of the order dated 17.03.2015 in the guise of modification of the order. The modification of any order is permissible only if there are any typographical error. If the modification is sought for reviewing the order, in that event, M.J.C. for modification is not maintainable.
4. Accordingly, the present M.J.C. stands dismissed insofar as pleadings at para-2 of the M.J.C., reserving liberty to the petitioner to file Review in accordance with law. 5. At this stage, in para-4 it is pointed out a typographical error has been narrated only to that extent typographical error could be rectified. Accordingly, the present M.J.C. for modification stands allowed in part insofar as para-4 of the pleadings. Accordingly, Registry is hereby directed to rectify the error of date in the light of para-4 in the order dated
17.03.2015.
6. Accordingly, M.J.C. is allowed in part.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
( Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
manish/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 28.06.2024 Transmission Date N.A
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
