Harshita (Minor) v. The Union Of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16079 of 2021 ====================================================== 1.

Harshita (Minor) represented through her father and natural guardian Anup Kumar, residing at 39, Shanti Niketan, East Bhoot Nath Ashram, Police Station-Agam Kuan, District-Patna.

2.

Anup Kumar, Son of Late Brij Nandan Prasad Singh, Resident of N.H.-82, Kaiya near Budhgere, P.S.-Muffasil, District-Gaya. presently residing at 39, Shanti Niketan, East Bhoot Nath Ashram, Police Station-Agam Kuan, District-Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The Union of India through the Secretary, Human Resources Department, Government of India, New Delhi.

2.

Central Board of Secondary Education through its Chairman having its Head Office at Shiksha Kendra, Community Centre, Preet Vihar, Delhi. 3.

Controller of Examination, CBSE, having its Head Office at Shiksha Kendra, Community Centre, Preet Vihar, Delhi. 4.

Regional Officer C.B.S.E. having its regional office at Ambika Complex, Behind S.B.I. Colony, Bailey Road, Patna-800014. 5.

M.S. Memorial Academy, Rukanpura, Bailey Road, Patna-14 through its Principal, Patna.

6.

The Principal, M.S. Memorial Academy, Rukanpura, Bailey Road, Patna-14. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Prakritita Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent/CBSE :

Mr. Vinay Krishna Tripathy, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 24-09-2021 Heard Ms. Prakritita Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Vinay Krishna Tripathy, learned counsel counsel appearing for the Central Board of Secondary Education.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the statement made in paragraph-16 of the counter affidavit filed by the Central Board of Secondary Education, the

Patna High Court CWJC No.16079 of 2021(3) dt.24-09-2021 2/2 grievance of the petitioners no more subsists and, this writ application has become infructuous. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw this writ application.

Permission is granted.

This writ application is disposed of as having become infructuous.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) S.Ali/- U