Patna High CourtMJC/1895/2013dfd for non appearance

S. Merajul Haque @ Saiyed Merajul Haque v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2015-04-29Mr. Justice Dr. Ravi Ranjan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1895 of 2013 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3485 of 2007 ====================================================== S. Merajul Haque @ Saiyed Merajul Haque S/O Late S.I. Zharul Haque R/O Village Shaikhpura, P.S. M.H. Nagar Andar, District Siwan. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar.

2. The Collector Cum District Magistrate, Siwan Namely Mr. Gopal Mina.

3. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Siwan, Namely Mr. Durgesh Kumar.

4. The Circle Officer, Siswan At Present Hasanpura, District Siwan, Mr. B.K. Singh.

5. The Officer Incharge, P.S. M.H. Nagar Siswan (Andar). At Present Hasanpura, District Siwan, Namely Mr. Lakshmi Narain Mahto. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : None For the State : Mr. Manish Kumar Sinha, AC to SC 30 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL ORDER 29-04-2015 None appears on behalf of the petitioner. However, learned counsel for the State is present.

Petitioner has filed this application for initiation of a proceeding of contempt for non compliance of order dated 1.5.2012 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3485/2007.

A show cause has been filed on behalf of the opposite parties stating that the order has been fully complied and the boundary wall has been constructed by the petitioner on the land concerned. He has also given in writing that he has already put his pillars on his lands and he wants to withdraw the case.

Patna High Court MJC No.1895 of 2013 (2) dt.29-04-2015 2/2 Another letter appears to have been written by him which has also been brought on record as Annexure B to the show cause affidavit that the petitioner has already erected boundary wall and he is satisfied with the action of the authority concerned. However, since none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner at the time when the matter is called out, this application is dismissed for want of prosecution. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J) Spd/- U