Lakhan Dev Pd. Yadav v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19138 of 2016 ====================================================== Lakhan Dev Pd. Yadav son of Sri Kishore Yadav, resident of Village- Konchi, Tola- Gendbigha, P.S.- Guraru, District- Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The Commissioner, Magadh Commissioner, Gaya.

3.

The District Office, Gaya, District- Gaya.

4.

District Supply Officer, Gaya.

5.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Tekari, Gaya.

6.

The Block Development Officer, Guraru, Gaya.

7.

The Block Supply Officer, Guraru, Gaya.

8.

Sri Shivanandan Yadav, son of Late Kishun Yadav, resident of VillageKonchi, Tola- Genda bigha, P.S.- Guraru, District- Gaya. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Manish Mohan Kateryar For the Respondent/s :

Mr.S.Raza Ahmad-Aag5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY ORAL ORDER 29-07-2024

1. The Writ petition is filed for seeking relief of Writ of Mandamus to take appropriate action against the P.D.S. shopkeeper i.e. respondent No. 8. As per the report of the Block Development Officer, vide Letter No. 821 dated 26.08.2016 and also to direct the respondents to take appropriate action against the application of petitioner dated 15.11.2015.

2. Heard the Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the

Patna High Court CWJC No.19138 of 2016(3) dt.29-07-2024 2/2 record.

3. A detailed counter affidavit was filed by the respondents which clearly disclose that relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted on the grounds of the fact that 5th respondent, S.D.O. Tekari, has already passed an order dated 27.12.2016 contained in Memo No. 894 whereby the P.D.S. License No. 10/85 standing in the name of 8th respondent has been cancelled with immediate effect. The said order was passed subsequent to the filing of Writ petition. As such, the Writ petition has become infructuous. If the Writ petitioner has any grievance against the order dated 27.12.2016 of the 5th respondent he is at liberty to challenge the same.

4. This Court is of the considerable opinion that the Writ itself has become infructuous.

5. In view of the above discussion the Writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.

(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J) manishkumar/- U