Baidhnath Prasad Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4713 of 2016 ====================================================== Baidhnath Prasad Singh, son of Late Sant Sharan Singh, resident of Village - Nura, Post Office - Hansadih, Police Station - Masaurhi, District - Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna 2.
The Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3.
The Director, Agriculture, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4.
The Collector, Patna.
5.
The District Agriculture Officer, District - Patna. 6.
The Deputy Collector, Disaster Management, District - Patna. 7.
The Sub-Divisional Officer, Masaruhi, District - Patna. 8.
The Block Agriculture Officer, Masaurhi, District - Patna. 9.
The Block Development Officer,Masaurhi, District - Patna. 10.
The Circle Officer, Masaurhi, District - Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner :
None For the State :
Mr. Tej Pratap Singh, A.C. to AAG-13 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 14-08-2019 This petition was filed for distribution of aid from the State Government for agricultural inputs in the Sub-Division of Masaurhi, District-Patna.
The contentions raised in the petition are with regard to the alleged irregularities and discrepancies in the matter of such distribution with a further request to get an enquiry conducted in the matter.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4713 of 2016(5) dt.14-08-2019 2/2 The State was called upon to file a counter affidavit. Two counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondent nos.2 and 3 and the respondent nos.4 to 10 respectively. Along with the said counter affidavits, reports have been filed indicating the manner of disbursal and the amount which could not be disbursed. The details are given in both the affidavits. We have perused the same.
No one is present on behalf of the petitioner to press the petition.
We are satisfied that the respondents have come up with a plausible explanation and therefore in the light of the above, the petition is consigned for want of prosecution. (Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, CJ) (Anjana Mishra, J) PNM U