Mohan Kumar Sinha v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16142 of 2008 ====================================================== Mohan Kumar Sinha son of Sri Ragho Prasad, resident of village- Yadavpur Nanhkar, P.S. Dhaka, District- East Champaran .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Commissioner, Tirhut Division at Muzaffarpur, Town and DistrictMuzaffarpur

3. The Collector-cum- District Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari Town and P.S. Motihari, District- East Champaran

4. The Anchaladhikari Adapur Anchal, P.S. Adapur, District- East Champaran .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sri Raghawanand, GA-11 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 20-04-2017 Heard Sri Binod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Raghawanand, learned Government Advocate no.11.

The petitioner has approached this Court, invoking its writ jurisdiction under Article-226 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer for quashing of an order contained in Memo No.140 dated 20.09.2006 passed by the District Officer. By the said order, the petitioner was put under suspension with retrospective effect. In this case, earlier a counter affidavit was filed and subsequently on behalf of Respondent nos. 3 and 4, supplementary counter affidavit was filed on 18th April, 2017, Sri Raghawanand, learned Government Advocate no.11 submits that subsequently

Patna High Court CWJC No.16142 of 2008 (8) dt.20-04-2017 2/2 the earlier order of suspension was revoked in view of the fact that retrospective suspension was contrary to the law settled by this Court. He submits that now the earlier order has already been modified, which is evident from Annexure-S/A (Internal page-7, running page-68 to 70) to the supplementary counter affidavit. He submits that in view of subsequent development, the writ petition has now become infructuous.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the fact as disclosed in the supplementary counter affidavit. However, he requests for directing the Respondents to take appropriate steps for clearing the dues in view of Annexure-S/A to the supplementary counter affidavit.

In view of facts and circumstances, particularly the fact that the order under challenge has already been subsequently revoked vide Annexure-S/A to the supplementary counter affidavit, there is no reason to keep the matter pending. The writ petition stands disposed of.

The Court expects that in view of Annexure-S/A to the supplementary counter affidavit, Respondents may take appropriate steps for making payment at the earliest. (Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U