Patna High Court
Rakesh Kumar Singh @ Surendra Kumar SinghversusThe Nagar Parishad, Motihari
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The review petition is dismissed as it lacks merit and is procedurally infirm.
Summary
The petitioner, Rakesh Kumar Singh, filed a writ petition in 2017 seeking to quash a 2016 order that cancelled a lease deed between him and the Nagar Parishad, Motihari, alleging the order was passed without hearing and that the lease, originally executed in 1983 for 30 years, had lapsed in 2013 with no rent paid since 2009 or renewal application filed. The petitioner later withdrew the writ on 16 March 2023. A review application was subsequently filed by a different counsel, claiming the withdrawal was inadvertent and seeking to recall the withdrawal order. The Court examined the review petition and noted that the filing lawyer was not the one who appeared in the original writ, and the explanation offered was unsatisfactory. Finding no merit in the review and deeming the procedural basis weak, the Court dismissed the review application.
Issues considered
- What is the maintainability of a review petition filed to recall a withdrawal order when the petition is filed by counsel other than the original advocate?
Subjects
- lease deed
- cancellation
- writ petition
- review petition
- procedural irregularity
- municipal corporation
- withdrawal of writ
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVIEW No.271 of 2023
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12726 of 2017
======================================================
Rakesh Kumar Singh @ Surendra Kumar Singh Son Shri Ramrit Singh,
Resident of Mohalla Mathiya Zirat, West of N, H. 28A, P.O.- Motihari, P.S.-
Chhatauni, District -East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Nagar Parishad, Motihari represented through its Executive Officer,
Nagar Parishad, Motihari, East Champaran.
2. The Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Motihari, East Champaran.
3. The Chairman, Nagar Parishad, Motihari East Champaran.
4. The Empowered Standing Committee of Nagar Parishad, Motihari, East
Champaran, represented through its Chairman, Nagar Parishad, Motihari,
East Champaran.
5. The District Magistrate, East Champaran.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Santosh Bharti, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Raghwanand, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
6 09-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
CWJC No. 12726 of 2017 was filed by the petitioner seeking
quashing of the order dated 18.05.2016 contained in Memo No.
1073 issued under the signature of Executive Officer, Nagar
Parishad, Motihari, East Champaran whereby the lease deed
entered in between the college of the petitioner and the
respondent no. 2 was cancelled with effect from 18.05.2016. It
is next submitted that the grounds, on which the order
Patna High Court C. REV. No.271 of 2023(6) dt.09-01-2026
2/3
cancelling lease deed was challenged, was for the reason that
the order was passed without hearing the petitioner. It is also
submitted that the lease agreement in between the petitioner and
the Nagar Parishad, Motihari was entered in the year 1983
whereby 1 bigha 2 katha 14 dhur land of the Nagar Parishad was
leased to the petitioner for opening a college. It is submitted the
lease was valid for 30 years with a renewal clause. It is further
submitted that the lease deed came to an end in the year 2013
and in the year 2016, the lease was cancelled. It is also
submitted that in terms of the lease agreement, the rent was also
not paid to the Nagar Parishad from 2009 nor any application
seeking renewal was sought. It is further submitted that the
learned counsel for the petitioner who appeared before this
Court in the instant case on 16.03.2023 sought permission to
withdraw the writ application, accordingly the writ application
was permitted to be withdrawn by an order dated 16.03.2023. It
is next submitted that it is in this context that the instant review
application has been filed for recalling the order dated
16.03.2023 in CWJC No. 12726 of 2017.
3. After perusing the review application, it manifests
that the learned lawyer who had appeared in the writ application
has not filed the instant review application rather the review
Patna High Court C. REV. No.271 of 2023(6) dt.09-01-2026
3/3
application has been filed by a different lawyer on the ground
that the learned lawyer who had appeared initially in the writ
application inadvertently withdrew the writ application.
4. The Court is not satisfied with the explanation
furnished by the learned counsel appearing in the review
application, more so, when the learned counsel who had
appeared in the writ application is still in practice.
5. After hearing the learned counsel appearing in the
review application, the Court finds no merit in the same and
thus the review application is dismissed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U
Checking your session…