Jhalakjota Devi And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9101 of 2002 ======================================================
1. Jhalakjota Devi wife of Late Thakaur Prasad Singh
2. Surendra Bahadur Singh son of Late Thakur Prasad Singh
3. Sanjay Singh son of Surendra Bahadur Singh All are residents of Village Aurain, Police Station Chand, District Kaimur .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram
3. The Collector, Kaimur at Bhabua
4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Bhabua, District Kaimur
5. The Circle Officer, Circle Chand, District Kaimur
6. The Officer-in-charge, Police Station Chand, District Kaimur
7. Bachau Gond
8. Munnu Gond
9. Mishri Gond
10. Rajendra Gond All are sons of Late Sumer Gond
11. Ram Bilash Gond
12. Shiri Gond Both sons of Bechan Gond
13. Most. Gango Kauar wife of Late Sumar Gond
14. Munna Sah son of Late Ramjee Teli
15. Most. Budhia Kukar widow of Late Ramjee Teli Respondent nos. 7 to 15 are residents of Village Aurain, Police Station Chand, District Kaimur
16. Murahu Yadav son of Late Nanhku Yadav, residents of Village Aurain, Police Station Chand, District Kaimur at present Village Kuddi, Police KStation Chand, District Kaimur
17. Ram Surat Chamar son of Ram Krit Chamar
18. Most Kabutara Kuar widow of Late Nakur Chamar
19. Ram Das Chamar son of Late Kalu Chamar Respondent Nos. 17 to 19 are resident of Village Aurain, Police Station Chand, District Kaimur
20. Shiomurat Dhobi son of Late Ramker Dhobi, residents of Village Aurain, Police Station Chand, District Kaimur at present Village Baghaila, Police Station Chand, District Kaimur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : None For the Respondent/s : None ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 22-07-2016 Despite repeated calls, none appears on behalf of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9101 of 2002 (6) dt.22-07-2016 2/2 petitioners in support of the present writ petition. None appears on behalf of the respondents either, though the names of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties are printed in the daily cause list.
Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed for want of prosecution.
(Birendra Prasad Verma, J) Tahir/- U