Patna High CourtMJC/1630/2015allowed

Vishnu Shankar Tiwary @ Vishnu Tiwary And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2015-10-07Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1630 of 2015 In Cr. WJC 222 of 2014 ======================================================

1. Vishnu Shankar Tiwary @ Vishnu Tiwary Son of Sh. Ramraj Tiwary,

2. Neeraj Kumar Yadav @ Neeraj Yadav

3. Jay Dev Kumar Yadav @ Bhim Yadav

4. Jay Kishore @ Om Yadav Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are sons of Late Fuchchu Yadav. All residents of Mohalla- Gewal Bigha Bathan, P.S.- Rampur, District- Gaya .... .... Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The District Magistrate, Gaya

3. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya

4. The Superintendent of Police, (Town) Gaya

5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Gaya

6. The Dy. S.P., (Town) Gaya

7. The Officer Incharge, Gaya Civil Lines Police Station, Gaya

8. The A.S.I., Investigating Officer of (Gaya Civil Lines No. 118 of 2011) Gaya Civil Lines Police Station, Gaya

9. Simpu Singh son of Shri Uday Singh, resident of Mohalla- Gewal Bigha Batha, P.S.- Rampur, District- Gaya

10. Ruby Devi wife of Late Satish Kumar Singh, resident of MohallaGewal Bigha Bathan, P.S.- Rampur, District- Gaya .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Aaruni Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar- SC11 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 07-10-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

Patna High Court MJC No.1630 of 2015 (2) dt.07-10-2015 2/2 The present application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners for restoration of Cr.W.J.C. No. 222 of 2014, which was dismissed for want of prosecution, vide order dated 21.01.2015.

It is contended that on 21.01.2015, due to inadvertence, daily cause-list could not be marked by the advocate's clerk and as such, the counsel failed to appear before the Court when the matter was called out.

Learned counsel for the State has raised no objection to the prayer for restoration of the writ petition. On the facts and in the circumstances, the prayer is allowed.

Let Cr.W.J.C. No. 222 of 2014 be restored to its original file.

Accordingly, the application is disposed of.

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.) Kanchan/- U