Vinay Kumar Pappu v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7395 of 2015 ====================================================== Vinay Kumar Pappu S/o Dr. S.N.Roy Yadav, resident of Goriatoli, Station Road, Patna, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.-Kotwali, District-Patna, Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Govt. of Bihar.

3.

The Principal Secretar, Road Construction Department. 4.

The Managing Director, Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Ltd. 5.

Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited through it's Managing Director. 6.

The Chief Executive Officer-cum-Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation at Patna, Bihar 7.

The Executive Engineer, New Capital Division, North Patna Municipal Corporation at Patna, Bihar.

8.

The Chief Town Engineer, Patna Municipal, Mauryalok, Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Gajendra Pratap Singh, Advocate :

Ms. Rishika Jha, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Dhurjati Kumar Prasad, GP-14 For the PMC :

Mr. Sanjay Prakash Verma, Advocate For the Pul Nirman Nigam Ltd: Mrs. Binita Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 27-03-2025 Heard Mr. Gajendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dhurjati Kumar Prasad, learned counsel for the State, Mr. Sanjay Prakash Verma, learned counsel for the Patna Municipal Corporation and Ms. Binita Singh, learned counsel for the Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the supplementary affidavit filed by respondent Nos.5 & 6, the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed and the

Patna High Court CWJC No.7395 of 2015(6) dt.27-03-2025 2/2 present writ application has become infructuous. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ application.

3. Permission is accorded.

4. This writ application is dismissed as withdrawn as having become infructuous.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Suruchi/- U