Parsuram Ram v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 7943 of 2015 ====================================================== Parsuram Ram, Son of Bedu Ram, Resident of village- Piprah, P.S. Bagengola, District- Buxar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar through the Home Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna 2.

The Director General cum Inspector General of Police, Govt of Bihar, Patna. 3.

The Inspector General of Police.

4.

The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Patna. 5.

The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna.

6.

The Parichari Prawar-I, Patna cum Enquiry Officer. 7.

The Deputy Development Commissioner, Buxar.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr Ravish Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr Nadeem Seraj, GP V Ms Shalini, AC to GP V ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 25-06-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent-State.

2 Petitioner was dismissed from service on 20.05.1987. The dismissal was after an enquiry on account of his deserting his duty since 25.05.1983. petitioner has filed an appeal against the dismissal order dated 22.05.1987 on 26.11.1994. 3 One of the reliefs claimed in the instant writ petition is for a direction upon respondent No 4 to finally decide the

Patna High Court CWJC No.7943 of 2015 dt.25-06-2019 2/2 appeal filed by the petitioner after such a long and inordinate delay.

4 Counter affidavit has been filed after serving copies on the petitioner's counsel in 2016 itself. The same has brought on record the final order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 06.05.1998.

5 In view of the fact that appeal of the petitioner has already been decided long before filing the instant writ proceedings and copy of the same has been annexed in the counter affidavit filed after serving copy on petitioner's counsel in February 2016, the relief, to the extent that the petitioner sought a direction against respondent No 4, has become infructuous. The order dated 06.05.1998 on the appeal has never been challenged by the petitioner even in the instant proceedings. 6 In view of such developments, there is no occasion for this Court to exercise jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. 7 Writ petition is dismissed.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) M.E.H./- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 27.06.2019 Transmission Date NA