Rakesh Kumar Singh v. The Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10218 of 2016 ====================================================== Rakesh Kumar Singh Son of Sri Krishna Mohan Singh Resident of village P.O. Piyania, Telmar, P.S. Udwant Nagar, District - Bhojpur Ara ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The Union Of India through the Ministry of Home 2.

The Director General, Central Industrial Security Force Ministry of Home Unit Oil, Duliajan, Dibrugarh, Assam.

3.

The Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force (Ministry of Home) Unit OIL, Duliajan, Dibrugarh, Assam. 4.

The Commandant Central Industrial Security Force (Ministry of Home) Unit Oil, Duliajan, Dibrugarh 5.

The Deputy Commandant Central Industrial Security Force Ministry of Home Unit OIL, Duliajan, Dibrugarh, Assam-cumInquiry Officer. 6.

The Inspector, Central Industrial Security Force (Ministry of Home) Unit Oil, Duliajan, Dibrugarh, Assam-cum-Presenting Officer ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

None For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, Sr. C.G.C.

Mr. R. K. Sharma, C.G.C.

Mr. Abhishek Kumar Verma, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 15-07-2025 None appears on behalf of the petitioner. However, learned counsel for the Union of India is present.

2. It transpires from the record that the matter was adjourned on three previous occasions at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner first, vide Order No. 2 dated 20.11.2024; then again, vide Order No. 3 dated 11.12.2024; and for the third time, vide Order No. 4 dated 08.01.2025. Thereafter, on 01.07.2025, when the matter was called, none

Patna High Court CWJC No.10218 of 2016(6) dt.15-07-2025 2/2 appeared on behalf of the petitioner despite repeated calls. At that time, the matter was adjourned by way of last indulgence with a clear observation that if no one appeared on the next date, appropriate orders would be passed.

3. Today again, upon repeated calls, there is no appearance on behalf of the petitioner, which clearly suggests that the petitioner has lost interest in pursuing the present writ petition.

4. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. (Dr. Anshuman, J) Ashwini/- U