Rajendra Prasad Gupta v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4240 of 2004 ====================================================== Rajendra Prasad Gupta son of Late Pargan Saw, resident of Village Datiana, P.O. Datiana, P.S.Bikram, District Patna .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department.
2. The Collector, Patna
3. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Paliganj, Patna
4. The D.C.L.R., Paliganj, Patna
5. The Civil Surgeon/The Chief Medical Officer, Patna
6. Kameshwar Prasad Verma son of Late Dahin Verma, resident of Village and P.O. Datiyana, P.S.Bikram, District Patna
7. Sat Narain Singh son of Late Bawan Singh, resident of Village and P.O. Datiyana, P.S.Bikram, District Patna
8. Alakh Singh son of Late Matuk Singh, resident of Village and P.O. Datiyana, P.S.Bikram, District Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : None For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 : Mr. Ranjay Kumar Singh, AC to SC 6 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 22-12-2016 Despite repeated calls, none appears on behalf of the petitioner to press the present writ petition. However, I have heard the learned AC to SC 6, appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 5.
The learned State counsel by looking into the record of this case points out that the present writ petition stood dismissed as against the respondent nos. 7 and 8 on account of non-compliance of the Court's peremptory order dated 01.05.2012. He submits that in view of dismissal of the present writ petition against the respondent nos. 7 and 8, the matter has become incompetent and can not be appropriately considered and decided by this Court.
Submissions made by the learned State stands
Patna High Court CWJC No.4240 of 2004 (6) dt.22-12-2016 2/2 corroborated by the office note dated 06.09.2016. In above view of the matter, this Court is left with no option, but to dismiss the writ petition as a whole on the account of having become incompetent. It is, accordingly, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (Birendra Prasad Verma, J) Tahir/- U