← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/14746/2017dismiss for nonprosecution

Ranjan Kumar @ Rajan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2025-07-09Justice Smt. G. Anupama Chakravarthy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14746 of 2017 ====================================================== Ranjan Kumar @ Rajan Kumar Son of Anil Kumar Rai, Resident of VillageJitwar Chauth, P.S.- Samastipur Muffasil, District- Samastipur, Proprietor of M/s Modern Chemical.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The District Magistrate, Samastipur, District- Samastipur. 3.

Bihar Gramin Bank through its Authorized Officer, Samastipur Branch. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

None For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Anil Kr. Singh-Gp26 For the Bank :

Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY ORAL ORDER 09-07-2025

1. This Court has passed a detailed oral order on 08.07.2025, which reads as follows:-

1. No representation for the petitioner.

2. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the Learned counsel for the respondents that the Writ petition has been filed against the action under the SARFAESI Act, and the petitioner has already availed his remedy before the DRT, as evident from Annexure-3. If at all he is aggrieved by the said order, he has to approach the DRAT, Allahabad, and without availing this remedy, the

Patna High Court CWJC No.14746 of 2017(4) dt.09-07-2025 2/2 petitioner has filed the present Writ petition. It is also contended that the Writ petition itself is not maintainable.

3. However, for giving a fair opportunity to the Learned counsel for the petitioner to submit his arguments on merit, list on 09.07.2025.

2. In spite of the said order, today also, when the matter was called in the first round before lunch, there was no representation for the petitioner, and the case was directed to be taken up after lunch.

3. Even after the lunch, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, the Writ petition is dismissed for default and for non-prosecution.

(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J) Amandeep/- U