Patna High CourtCWJC/770/2015dismissed

Md. Majahar Ali Makki v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-11-10Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 770 of 2015 ====================================================== Md. Majahar Ali Makki, Son of Md. Tahir Alam, Resident of Village & P.O.- Ghamsain via Kurson Nadiyami, Police Station- Bahera, District: Darbhanga.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary Education Development, Bihar, Patna.

2. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna.

3. The District Magistrate, Madhubani.

4. The Regional Deputy Director, Regional Office, Laheriasarai, Darbhanga.

5. The District Programme Officer cum District Superintendent of Education, Madhubani (Bihar).

6. The Block Education and Extension Officer, Madhepur, Madhubani.

7. Md. Motiur Rahman Son of Md. Yusuf, Resident of House No. 155, Alinagar, Mirjapur, P.O. Ghamsain, Police Station, Bahera, District Darbhanga, at present posted as Headmaster, Govt Upgraded Middle School, Rajour, P.O. and Police Station Madhepur, District: Madhubani.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Prafull Chandra Jha, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Maruth Nath Roy, A.C, to S.C.

Mr. Arvind Ujjwal, Advocate For the Respondent No. 7 :

Mr. Md. Aquil Ahmad, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL ORDER 10-11-2017 Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State is present.

2. On 28.01.2017, time was taken by learned counsel for the petitioner in view of him having received counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no. 7. Again on 20.02.2017, on prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, further one week time

Patna High Court CWJC No.770 of 2015 (6) dt.10-11-2017 2/2 was granted to file reply to the counter affidavit.

3. Today, neither learned counsel for the petitioner is present nor any reply to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 7 is on record and upon verification also it transpires that the same has not been filed in the Registry of the Court.

4. In view thereof, the writ petition stands dismissed. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar U