Patna High CourtMJC/4406/2014disposed

Sulekha Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-05-22Justice Smt. Anjana Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.4406 of 2014 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 423 of 2013 ====================================================== Sulekha Devi, wife of Vinay Sah, Resident of village- Mannupur Khara of the Pouram Panchayat, P.S.- Hayaghat, District- Darbhanga. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the then Principal Secretary of the Human Resource Development Department Patna namely Mr. Amarjeet Kumar Sinha.

2. The then Commissioner, Darbhanga namely Bandana Kini.

3. The then District Magistrate, Darbhanga namely Mr. Kumar Ravi.

4. The then District Programme Officer, Darbhanga namely Mr. Nand Kishore Sah.

5. The then Block Development Officer Hayaghat, namely Mr. Dharmendra Prasad Gupta.

6. The then Child Development Project Officer, Hayaghat, Darbhanga namely Nibha Kumari.

7. The then Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayt Raj Pouram, Hayaghat, Darbhanga namely Mr. Lalbabu Paswan.

8. The then Panchayat Secretary of the Pouram Panchayat of the Hayaghat block Darbhanga namely Mr. Islam.

9. Sanju Devi, wife of Lalit Kumar Choudhary, Residing at villageMannupur Khara of the Pouram Panchayat, P.S.- Hayaghat, DistrictDarbhanga. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : None For the S t a t e : Mr. Brajesh Kumar, A.C. to AAG-4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 22-05-2017 No one appears for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State is present.

Learned counsel for the State submits that the order in question has already been complied with and a show cause has already been filed by the State, which shows that the order has been complied with in letter and spirit.

Patna High Court MJC No.4406 of 2014 (3) dt.22-05-2017 2/2 The M.J.C. application stands disposed of, however, with liberty to the petitioner, if at all required, to come back with an affidavit to revive the case.

(Anjana Mishra, J) PNM U