Shankar Kumar Singh And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8059 of 2018 ====================================================== 1.

Shankar Kumar Singh and Ors Son of Late Bumbahadar Singh, 2.

Rajesh Kumar Mandal, Son of Sri Narayan Mandal. 3.

Munilal Sharma, Son of Late Hittu Sharma, 4.

Nutan Singh @ Sushree Nutan Singh, Wife of Shankar Kumar Singh. 5.

Basant Lal Ravidas, Son of Kallar Ravidas.

6.

Baby Kumari, Wife of Jai Shankar Thakur.

7.

Arjun Tatma, Son of Ajab Lal Tatma.

8.

Raman Kumar Singh, Son of Nirbhay Kumar Singh, 9.

Kanchan Singh, Wife of Lallan Prasad Singh.

10.

Santosh Kumar Singh, Son of NItyanand Singh, 11.

Kumar Navandu, Son of Late Avainash Chandra Singh. 12.

Sarita Kumari, Daughter of Late Baidyanath Singh 13.

Pulkit Yadav, Son of Late Jagat Lal Yadav, 14.

Jai Kishore Yadav, Son of Late Budhan Yadav. All resident of VillageMadrauni, P.S.- Rangra, District- Bhagalpur. 15.

Vikash Yadav, Son of Late Krit Narayan Yadav, Resident of VillageTintanga Katari, P.S.- Gopalpur, District- Bhagalpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar and Ors 2.

The Director, Mass Education, Bihar, Patna.

3.

The District Education Officer, Bhagalpur.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajendra Kumar Jain For the Respondent/s :

Mr.S.C.Mishra -Sc16 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 22-04-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the present writ petition has been rendered infructuous on

Patna High Court CWJC No.8059 of 2018(3) dt.23-04-2024 2/2 account of judgment dated 05.07.2023 rendered by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Civil Review No.59 of 2018 (The State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Harendra Mishra & Ors.). and the same may be disposed off accordingly. The operative portion of the said judgment is extracted as under:- "As has been discussed above, as the writ petitioners had admittedly not approached this Court or the Supreme Court on or before 26.02.2016, no relief could have been granted to them. The writ petition filed by them, i.e., CWJC No. 384 of 2017, deserved to be dismissed. Accordingly, we set aside the order dated 03.03.2017 passed in CWJC No. 384 of 2017."

3. In this view of the matter, the present writ petition is hereby disposed off.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Sunnykr/- U