← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/966/2022dismissed

Vikram Kumar Ranjan v. The State Of Bihar

2024-11-19Mr. Justice Harish Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.966 of 2022 ====================================================== Vikram Kumar Ranjan Son of Ramesh Ram Resident of Ward No. - 7, Ginjas, P.O. - Jaintpur, P.S. - Saraiya, District- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Director I.C.D.S., Department of Social Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3.

The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur.

4.

The District Program Officer, Muzaffarpur.

5.

The Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), Kanti, Muzaffarpur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Yugal Kishore, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. S.K. Mandal, SC-3 Mr. Madan Prasad Singh No. 2, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 19-11-2024 Heard the parties.

2. At the outset, Mr. Madan Prasad Singh No. 2, learned Advocate submits at the Bar that he has filed an intervenor application bearing I.A. No. 01 of 2023, for impleading Mr. Gaurav Kumar, son of Late Ram Naresh Ram, as a party respondent in the present writ petition, in whose favour, the compassionate appointment has already been extended.

3. The aforesaid fact has also been reiterated by the learned Advocate for the State.

4. Since the appointment on compassionate ground

Patna High Court CWJC No.966 of 2022(3) dt.19-11-2024 2/2 has already been extended in favour of Mr. Gaurav Kumar, this Court does not find any reason or occasion to hear the case of the petitioner, who is claiming himself to be an adopted son.

5. At this juncture, learned Advocate for the petitioner fairly contended that since the appointment has already been extended in favour of Mr. Gaurav Kumar, the matter has become infructuous and, as such, he is not pressing the writ petition.

6. In view, thereof, the writ petition stands dismissed, as not pressed.

(Harish Kumar, J) shivank/- U