Arvind Kumar (No.1) v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1456 of 2022 ====================================================== Arvind Kumar (No.1), Son of Sri Ramashraya Singh, Resident of Village and P.O. - Ajgara, P.S. - Bhadaur, District - Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4.

The Engineer - in - Chief, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

5.

The Chief Engineer (Monitoring) Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

6.

The Chief Engineer (Mechanical) Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

7.

The Superintending Engineer, Mechanical, Circle, National High Way, Patna.

8.

The Executive Engineer (Mechanical) National High Way Mechanical Division, Dehri-on-Sone.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

None For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Manoj Kr. Ambastha, SC26 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 14-10-2022 Today being Friday, matters are being taken up through virtual mode, as per current procedure for hearing. It is submitted by learned counsel for the State that the petitioner was removed on ground of his appointment being illegal by order dated 23.10.1998. The petitioner has twice assailed the order, once in C.W.J.C. No.1120 of 2002 and thereafter in CWJC No.408 of 2013. In both these rounds of

Patna High Court CWJC No.1456 of 2022(3) dt.14-10-2022 2/2 litigation the petitioner's challenge has been rejected by this Court. The present writ application, therefore, now again seeking relief contrary to decisions on the writ petitions filed by the petitioner earlier, is not maintainable.

Learned counsel for the petitioner had not appeared, when the matter was called on 23.09.2022. Today again there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. In the circumstance, without going into merits of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the State, writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. (Madhuresh Prasad, J) shashank/- U