Patna High CourtMJC/529/2016allowed

Sheo Kumari Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-02-10Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.529 of 2016 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16025 of 2010 ====================================================== Sheo Kumari Devi W/o Lal Mohar Ram R/o village - Bhadwar, P.S. Bagen Gola, District - Buxar .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Commissioner cum Principal Secretary Human Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

2. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna

3. The District Magistrate, Buxar

4. The District Superintendent of Education cum District Programme Co - Ordinator, Buxar

5. The Sub - Divisional officer, Dumraon

6. The Block Education Extension Officer, Brahmpur, District - Buxar

7. The Block Development officer, Brahmpur, District - Buxar

8. The Circle officer, Brahmpur, District - Buxar

9. Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Bhadwar, P.S. Begen Gola, District - Buxar

10. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Bhadwar, P.S. Begen Gola, District - Buxar

11. The Head Master, Primary School Anusuchit Tola Nawadi Bhadwar, District - Buxar

12. Banarsi Bari S/o Late Khaderu Bari R/o village - Bhadwar, P.S. Bagen, District - Buxar .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta, AC to GP-10 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL ORDER 10-02-2017 Re : M.J.C. No. 529 of 2016 :

Even though the Court is not satisfied with the reasoning assigned in the restoration application, C.W.J.C. No. 16025 of 2010 is restored with the condition that even the writ application will be taken up on merits.

Application is allowed.

Patna High Court MJC No.529 of 2016 (2) dt.10-02-2017 2/2 Re : C.W.J.C. No. 16025 of 2010 :

Heard counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the State.

The impugned order is dated 14.06.2010. Seven years have gone past. If the status or situation, which was prevalent at the relevant time for issuance of the impugned order, still subsists, the petitioner may have occasion to approach either the authorities or a Court of law as the case may be. Writ is disposed of with the observation as above. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) Pawan/- U