Patna High CourtCWJC/927/1999dismissed

Subhash Chandra Yadav And ANR v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2015-03-24Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.927 of 1999 ===========================================================

1. Subhash Chandra Yadav, Son of Late Ram Kripal Prasad Yadav, resident of Village-Baraith, P.S.-Basnahi, District-Saharsa.

2. Bachchu Singh, Son of Ramji Singh, resident of Village-Naya Tola Salempur, P.S.-Surajgarha, District-Lakhisarai.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.

2. The Engineer-in-Chief Cum Special Secretary to Govt. Public Health Engineering Department, New Secretariat, Patna.

3. The Zonal Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, New Secretariat, Patna.

4. The Superintending Engineer Pubic Health Engineering Mechanical Department, Bhagalpur.

5. The Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Mechanical Department Division, Munger.

6. The Assistant Engineer, Public Health Engineering Mechanical Department, Sub-Division, Munger.

7. Sri Pankaj Kumar, The Junior Engineer, Public Health Engineering Mechanical Department, Sub-Divisional, Munger.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kumar Ambastha, Adv. For the Respondent No. 1 (State) : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Adv. (AC to SC12) =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 24-03-2015

Patna High Court CWJC No.927 of 1999 dt.24-03-2015 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioners informs this Court that this writ application to the extent it relates to petitioner no. 2 has become infructuous. The Interlocutory Application No. 300 of 2012 has been filed for withdrawal of the writ application on behalf of petitioner no. 2 on that ground.

The Interlocutory Application No. 300 of 2012 is, accordingly, allowed.

The writ petition to the extent it relates to petitioner no. 2 stands dismissed as having become infructuous. Learned counsel for the petitioners further informs that he does not have any instruction from petitioner no. 1 to press this application.

This application, accordingly, stands dismissed, to the extent it relates to petitioner no. 1 also This writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Praveen-II/- U