M/S J. M. P. Bricks Through Its Proprietor, Madhav Kumar Dhanuka v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16438 of 2017 ====================================================== M/s J. M. P. Bricks Through Its Proprietor, Madhav Kumar Dhanuka Son of Late Chiranji Lal Dhanuka, Resident of Village, P.O. and P.S.- Thakurganj, District- Kishanganj.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar and Ors 2.

The Principal Secretary, Environment and Pollution Control Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Bihar State Pollution Control Board, through its Member Secretary, Beltorn Bhawan, Shastri Naga 4.

The Member Secretary, Bihar State Pollution Control Board, Beltron Bhawan, Shastri Nagar, Patna-23.

5.

The Collector, Kishanganj District at Kishanganj. 6.

The Additional Collector, Kishanganj.

7.

The District Mines Officer, Purnea-cum-Kishanganj. 8.

The Assistant Mines Officer, Purnea.

9.

Mines Development Officer, Purnea-cum-Kishanganj. 10.

Mines Inspector-cum-Competent Officer, Purnea cum Kishanganj. 11.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Kishanganj, District- Kishanganj. 12.

The Anchaladhikari, Kishanganj, P.S. and District- Kishanganj. 13.

The Superintendent of Police, Kishanganj.

14.

The Station House Officer, P.S.- Thakurganj, District- Kishanganj. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

None For the State :

Mr. Raghwanand, GA-11 For the Mines :

Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Spl.PP Mrs. Kalpana, Advocate For the Pollution Board :

Mr. Shivendra Kishore, Sr. Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 24-06-2025 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Mr. Naresh Dikshit, learned Spl.PP for the Department of Mines, Mr. Shivendra Kishore, learned Senior Counsel for the Pollution Board and Mr. Raghwanand, learned GA-11

Patna High Court CWJC No.16438 of 2017(3) dt.24-06-2025 2/2 for the State are present.

3. This is an old matter of the year 2017. On the last occasion i.e. 13.05.2025, also nobody had appeared on behalf of the petitioner, and an order was passed making it clear that if the petitioner does not appear to press the writ application today, then the Court may consider dismissing the case for non-prosecution. Despite this order, again nobody has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. It is, thus, clear that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing this application. It is, therefore, dismissed on account of non-prosecution.

(Alok Kumar Sinha, J) shikha/- U