Chistia Khatoon v. The Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9133 of 2010 ====================================================== Chistia Khatoon, W/O Late Mohammad Jainul Haque, R/O Mohalla- River Tola, Ward No.6, P.S. and Distt.- Katihar .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Railway, Government of India, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi

2. North Frontier Railway through Its General Manager Having Its Office at Maligaon, Guahati

3. The General Manager, North Frontier Railway Having Its Office at Maligaon, Guahati

4. The Divisional Railway Manager (Commercial) North Frontier Railway Station, Having Its Office at Katihar Railway Station

5. Senior Divisional Commercial Manager Katihar Railway Station, Katihar

6. The Chief Commercial Manager (Station) Katihar Railway Station, Katihar

7. The Chief Commercial Inspector, Katihar North Frontier Railway, Having Its Office at Maligaon, Guahati

8. The Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited, Through Its Executive Director Catering Service, Having Its Corporate Office at 9th Floor, Bank of Baroda Building, 16 Parliament Street, New Delhi

9. The Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited, Eastern Zone through the General Manager Eastern Zone-3, Koylaghat Street, Ground Floor, Kolkata

10. Group General Manager Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited, East Zone, Having Its Office at 3- Koylaghat Street, Ground Floor, Kolkata

11. The Regional Manager Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited, Guahati, Having Its Office at 4D, Mandovi Apartment, G.N.B. Road, Ambari, Guahati .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : None For the Respondent nos.1to7 : Mr. Anil Singh For the Respondent nos.8to11: Mr.Mithilesh Kumar Pathak ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 13-03-2015 Despite repeated calls, none appears on behalf of the petitioner in support of the present writ petition, though the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents are present.

Patna High Court CWJC No.9133 of 2010 (3) dt.13-03-2015 According to learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.8 to 11, the present matter has become infructuous in view of the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on their behalf.

Be that as it may, since none is appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the present writ petition stands dismissed for want of prosecution.

(Birendra Prasad Verma, J) Arvind/- U