Mritunjay Ghosh And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10958 of 2016 ====================================================== 1.

Mritunjay Ghosh, son of Late Keshav Chandra Ghosh, Resident of Colony No.2, Ward No.21, Katihar P.S. and District- Katihar 2.

Bhajan Kumar Ghosh, son of Late Sudhir Chandra Ghosh, Resident of Colony No.2, Ward No.21, Katihar P.S. and District- Katihar 3.

Jai Prakash Mandal, son of Late Prasad Mandal R/o Ward No.17 Durga Asthan near Vayapar Mandal Katihar P.S. and District- Katihar. 4.

Ram Chandra Mahto, son of Bindeshwari Mahto Resident of Mohalla Laliyahi, P.S. and District Katihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The District Magistrate, Katihar 3.

The Deputy Development Commissioner, Katihar 4.

The Deputy Collector Establishment, Katihar.

5.

The Civil Surgeon-cum Chief Medical Officer, Katihar. 6.

The District Maleria Officer, Katihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bhola Prasad, Advocate Mr.Mukesh Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Raghwanand, GA-11 Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, AC to GA-11 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 23-05-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

In the present case, the petitioners are claiming that their case is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 26.07.2012 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 17637 of 2010 (Sanjeewan Prasad Singh and Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.). In such view of the matter, let the respondent

Patna High Court CWJC No.10958 of 2016(2) dt.23-05-2019 2/2 authority examine the case of the present petitioners vis-a-vis the case of the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 17637 of 2010 (Sanjeewan Prasad Singh and Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) and if it is found that the facts, prayer, status and law of cases are identical, in such circumstance, the present petitioners will also be given the same benefit as has been given to the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 17637 of 2010 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

However, it is made clear that this Court is not giving any opinion on the merit of the case.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) V.K.Pandey/- U