Rupesh Kumar v. The Union Of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22134 of 2014 ====================================================== Rupesh Kumar son of Rajendra Prasad Singh Resident of Village - Parghari, P.O. Bamdeo, P.S. Rajoun, District - Banka.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi.

2. Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi.

3. The Collector, Banka.

4. Pryag Group of Companies, registered office at P - 45, Bhupan Roy Road, Kolkata, through its Managing Director.

5. Basudeo Bagchi son of Nripendra Nath Bagchi Director, Prayag Group of Companies, resident of 139C/21/1 Becha Ram Chatterjee Road, Kolkata.

6. Sawapan Bagchi wife of Basudeo Bagchi Director, Prayag Group of Companies, resident of 139C/21/1 Becha Ram Chatterjee Road, Kolkata. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Mritunjay Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Respondent Nos. 1&: Mr. A. B. Mathur, CGC For the Respondent No.3 :

Mr. Patanjali Rishi, AC to AAG-10 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) 12-01-2016 Heard Mr. Mritunjay Prasad Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. A. B. Mathur, learned Counsel, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Heard also Mr. Patanjali Rishi, learned Assistant Counsel to Additional Advocate General No.10, appearing for the respondent No. 3. After some arguments, Mr. Mritunjay Prasad Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, seeks permission to withdraw this application, made, under Article 226 of the Constitution of

Patna High Court CWJC No.22134 of 2014 (2) dt.12-01-2016 2/2 India, in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, with liberty to approach the appropriate authority with appropriate application, if so advised, and/or to take recourse to such provisions of law as may be permissible.

No objection has been raised by the respondents to the prayer for withdrawal made by the petitioner. In view of the above and in the interest of justice, this writ application is hereby disposed of as withdrawn with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority with appropriate application, if so advised, and/or to take recourse to such provisions of law as may be permissible. However, we make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merit of the present writ petition. (I.A. Ansari, ACJ) (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Pawan/- U