Raj Kishore Singh And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.426 of 2017 ====================================================== 1.

Raj Kishore Singh and Ors Son of Late Ram Karan Singh, Resident of village - Chainpur, P.S. Goraul, District - Vaishali A P.D.S. Dealer of Katarmala Panchayat, Prakhand Goraul, District - Vaishali 2.

Sonelal Roy, Son of Late Prayag Roy, Resident of village - Pojha, P.S. Goraul, District Vaishali A P.D.S. Dealer of Mahamadpur Pojha Panchayat, Prakhand Goraul, District - Vaishali 3.

Ram Nandan Roy, Son of Late Gajendra Roy, Resident of village - Sondho, P.S. Goraul, District - Vaishali A PDS dealer of Sondho Panchayat, Prakhand Goraul, District Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar and Ors 2.

The Principal Secretary, Food, Supply and Consumer Protection Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3.

The District Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur 4.

The Deputy Development Commissioner. Vaishali at Hajipur 5.

The Sub Divisional officer, Vaishali at Hajipur 6.

The Block Development officer, Goraul, District - Vaishali 7.

The Block Supply Officer, Goraul, District Vaishali ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Manish Chandra Gandhi For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Giri, GP-9 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY ORAL ORDER 18-11-2024

1. The Writ petition is filed to quash the order bearing Memo No. 1130 dated 08.09.2016 issued by the Block Development Officer, Goraul, Vaishali whereby the petitioners were directed to deposit the remaining amount mentioned in column No. 10 of the said order,

Patna High Court CWJC No.426 of 2017(5) dt.18-11-2024 2/2 in Block Nazarat till 20.09.2016.

2. It is reported to the Court that petitioner has not deposited the remaining amount before the respondent and subsequent to that date ie. 20.09.2016, no order was passed by the respondent.

3. On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that it is a conditional order directing the petitioners to deposit the amount till 20.09.2016 and subsequently, there are no arrears, therefore, nothing remains in the Writ petition for adjudication.

4. At this juncture, the Learned counsel for the petitioner intends to withdraw the Writ petition with liberty to challenge the orders passed by the respondent, if any.

5. Permission is accorded. The Writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. (G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J) vinita/- U