Daroga Singh v. The Bihar State Co Operative B

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6572 of 2011 =========================================================== Daroga Singh S/O Late Padum Singh Resident Of Mohalla Magadh Vihar, H. No. 26b, P.S. Gardanibagh, District Patna.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Bihar State Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Through Its Chairman, The Bihar State Cooperative Bank Ltd, Ashok Rajpath, Patna.

2. The Chairman, The Bihar State Cooperative Bank Ltd, Ashok Rajpath, Patna.

3. The Managing Director, Bihar State Cooperative Bank Ltd. Ashok Rajpath, Patna.

4. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, R-Block, Road No. 06, Patna.

5. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, R-Block, Road No. 06, Patna.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, Advocate For the Bihar State Co-operative Bank Ltd. : Mr. S. N. Pathak with Mr. Prashant Kumar, Advocates For the P.F. Commissioner :

Mr. Prashant Sinha, Advocate For the State :

Ms. Neeta Singh, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 19-04-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; Bihar State Co-operative Bank Limited and Employees Provident Fund Organization.

2. Repeatedly the case is being taken up and adjourned.

Patna High Court CWJC No.6572 of 2011 dt.19-04-2018 2/2 On 13.03.2018, while hearing Interlocutory Application No. 1943 of 2018, dealing with substitution of the sole writ petitioner who had died during the pendency of the writ petition, the Court had recorded that pleadings be completed as Interlocutory Application for substitution was thoroughly inadequate. Since then, despite the matter having been taken up on 22.03.2018, no further steps have been taken on behalf of the heirs of the deceased sole petitioner for getting themselves substituted in the proceeding.

3. In view thereof, the writ petition has become unfit to proceed and accordingly the same stands dismissed.

4. However, the heirs will be at liberty to move before the appropriate forum, as may be permissible, and in accordance with law, for any grievance which they might have with regard to the issues involved in the present writ petition. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) Anjani/- AFR/NAFR U