Patna High CourtCWJC/4112/2016dismissed

Rabindra Mohan Prasad Madhur v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-07-24The Chief Justice,Mr. Justice Dr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4112 of 2016 =========================================================== Rabindra Mohan Prasad Madhur, son of Late Awadesh Nandan Prasad, Senior Journalist at Rajendra Nagar, P.O. Koshi College, P.S. Chitragupt Nagar, District Khagaria.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary of Health Department, Bihar, Patna.

2. The Chairman, Medical Council of India, New Delhi.

3. Registrar, Medical Council of Registration, Health Department, Bihar, Patna.

4. Indian Medical Association, Bihar, Patna.

5. Drugs Control, Bihar, Patna.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

For the Respondent/s : Mr. Niraj Kumar Sinha, A.C. to PAAG-2 Mr. D.K. Sinha, AAG-2 For the M.C.I. : Mr. Kumar Brijnandan, Advocate Mr. Rarees Hameed, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 24-07-2017 On 2nd of February, 2017 while hearing the matter on the question of admission, petitioner was granted time to file supplementary affidavit and clarify certain facts. After 02.02.2017 when the order was not complied with for a period of more than two months, on 06.04.2017 time was granted for filing the supplementary affidavit and it was clearly indicated that if the supplementary affidavit is not filed, this Public Interest Litigation would be dismissed for non-compliance with the order passed on 02.02.2017. Thereafter

Patna High Court CWJC No.4112 of 2016 dt.24-07-2017 2/2 the matter was listed on 17.05.2017 and again on 07.07.2017 and inspite of time being granted, the order passed on 02.02.2017 has not been complied with. Today when the matter is taken up, we find that neither the supplementary affidavit has been filed nor is the counsel representing the petitioner present.

Keeping in view the aforesaid, we are not inclined to go into the matter in this Public Interest Litigation at the instance of the petitioner.

We dismiss the petition with liberty to aggrieved individuals to ventilate their grievance individually in case they have any grievance still subsisting.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) P.K.P.

AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.

CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 25.07.2017 Transmission Date