Suresh Prasad Sinha And ANR v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15779 of 2015 ====================================================== 1.

Suresh Prasad Sinha S/o- Chandeshwar Prasad Singh, R/o Mohalla- Adalbari Ward No. 3, P.S.- Harpur Town, District- Vaishali 2.

Amarjeet Kumar, S/o- Late Raghuvansh Prasad Singh, R/o- Pokhra Mohalla, Near to Medinimal School, Hazipur, Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2.

The District Magistrate, Vaishali, Hazipur 3.

District Law Administration through District Magistrate, Vaishali, Hazipur 4.

The Secretary, Department of Law, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 5.

Principal Secretary, Department of Law, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 6.

Additional Secretary, Department of Law, Govt. of Bihar, Patna ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vishwajeet Kumar Mishra, Adv.

For the State :

Mr. Suresh Kumar, AC to GP-1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 23-03-2023 The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:- "1. That this application is being filed for issuance of an appropriate writ / order / direction quashing the letter no. 5643 dated 4.9.2015, issued by the RespondentSecretary, Department of Law, Govt. of Bihar, by which 18 advocates have been appointed as Additional Public Prosecutors in the district of Vaishali at Hazipur.

1(A). That the petitioners further pray for issuance of any other appropriate writ / order / direction upon the respondents to

Patna High Court CWJC No.15779 of 2015(2) dt.23-03-2023 2/2 show cause as to why such appointments have been made just 4-5 days before the code of conduct was implemented in Bihar by the Election Commission. The Government has made such appointments only to oblige certain persons and for taking benefit of such appointments in the forthcoming State Election."

The learned counsel for the Respondent-State submits that a bare perusal of the order dated 4.9.2015 (Annexure-1 to the present writ petition) would show that the panel in question was valid only for three years and the said period has already stood expired in the year, 2018, hence, nothing survives for consideration in the present writ petition.

Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) Ajay/- U