Patna High CourtCWJC/12845/2000dfd for non appearance

Sheopujan Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-08-04Mr. Justice Jyoti Saran2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12845 of 2000 ====================================================== Sheopujan Singh, S/o Late Sadhu Singh, resident of Village- Dariapur, P.S. Masaurhi, District- Patna, at present posted as Clerk, District Statistics Office, Saharsa.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar, through its Chief Secretary, Old Secretariat Building, Bihar, Patna.

2. The Secretary to Govt. in the Department of Planning, Old Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna.

3. The Director, Statistics and Evaluation, Bihar, Patna.

4. The District Statistics Officer, Saharsa.

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

For the Petitioner/s : None For the Respondent/s : Mr. (SC-8) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 04-08-2016 None appears on behalf of the petitioner. Counsel for the State is present.

This writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 25.4.2008. The restoration application filed in 2011 was allowed on 17.8.2015. In between, as per the High Court Rules, the record of the writ petition was destroyed. This fact was not made known to the Bench at the time of restoration of the writ petition. Since after its restoration on 17.8.2015 this matter was listed on 18.7.2016 but none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. The matter was again listed on 28.7.2016 when again none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Today is the third consecutive date when the name of all the counsel who

Patna High Court CWJC No.12845 of 2000 (8) dt.04-08-2016 represented the writ petitioner at the stage of writ petition as well as the restoration application reflected in the daily cause list under the orders of the Court, yet there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.

As I have pointed above, the record of the writ petition was destroyed and unless the petitioner would have cooperated for reconstruction of the records, the proceeding cannot continue.

In the circumstances discussed and in absence of any counsel present to press the writ petition it is again dismissed for non-prosecution.

(Jyoti Saran, J) SKPathak/- U