Shri Vivek Visvash @ Vivek v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9539 of 2025 ====================================================== 1.

Shri Vivek Visvash @ Vivek S/o Harendra Paswan, R/o Village- Sonhani, P.O- Sonhani, PS- Bhagwanpur, District- Saran, Bihar. 2.

Pramod Kumar Paswan @ Pramod Kumar, S/o Rajendra Paswan, R/o Ward No. 3, Village- Akhtiyarpur, PO- Akhtiyarpur, PS- Sarairanjan, DistrictSamastipur, Bihar- 848127. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar Through its Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar. 2.

The Controller of Examination, Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board (BCECEB), Patna.

3.

The Dean cum Principal, Anugrah Narayan Magadh Medical College, Gaya. 4.

National Testing Agency (NTA), New Delhi through its Chairman 5.

National Medical Commission, through its Director under Graduate Medical Examination Board, National Medical Commission, Government of India. 6.

Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Apurv Harsh, Adv.

Mr. Manu Tripurari, Adv.

Mr. Raghu Raj Pratap, Adv.

Ms. Jaya Singh, Adv.

Mr. Hritik Anand, Adv.

Mr. Pranshu Prakash, Adv.

For the NMC :

Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, Adv.

Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Sudarshan Bharadwaj, Adv.

For the CBI :

Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Shivaditya Dhari Sinha, Adv.

For the NTA :

Ms. Chhaya Kirti, Adv.

For the BCECEB :

Mr. Prasoon Sinha, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 22-01-2026 Heard the parties.

2. Mr. Apurv Harsh, learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted at the bar that since the fact with regard to filing of the earlier writ petition has not been disclosed by the

Patna High Court CWJC No.9539 of 2025(7) dt.22-01-2026 2/2 petitioners and, as such, the same could not be mentioned in the present writ petition. However, after having confronted with the present situation, with the consent of the petitioners, he seeks permission to withdraw the present writ petition.

3. Learned Advocate for the respondents unanimously submitted that since the petitioners were knowing this fact that they had earlier moved before this Court and they ought to bring this fact before this Court, but the same has been suppressed, due to which the precious time of the Court is wasted.

4. Having considered the submissions advanced and the prayer made by learned Advocate for the petitioners, the present writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn; subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- each, which shall be deposited in the Patna High Court Legal Services Authority, within a period of four weeks.

(Harish Kumar, J) shivank/- U