Nisat Alam v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20365 of 2014 ====================================================== Nisat Alam Son of Late Nizamuddin, resident of Mohalla-New Sar Saiyat Colony, Near E.B.Star Market, Club Road, Mithanpura, P.S.- Mithanpura, Post- Ramna, District- Muzaffarpur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Collector, District- Muzaffarpur.

2. The S.D.O. (Sub-divisional Officer) East, District- Muzaffarpur.

3. The Senior Superintendent of Police, District- Muzaffarpur.

4. The S.H.O. Mithanpura, Police Station, district- Muzaffarpur.

5. The Regional Officer, regional Office, Bihar State Pollution Control Praisad (Board), Muzaffarpur.

6. The Secretary Bihar State Pollution Control Parisad (Board) Beltron Bhawan, Shastrinagar, Patna.

7. Md. Meraz Ansari (Proprietor of Steel Furniture Unit), Son of Md. Sarfuddin Ansari, Resident of Mohall- New Sarsaiyat colony, Near E.B.Star Market, Club Road, P.S.- Mithanpura, Post- Ramna, DistrictMuzaffarpur. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance:

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Giri For the Respondent/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, A.C. to SC-16 For the Pollution Board : Mr. Shivendra Kishore, Sr. Advocate Ms. Binita Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 26-10-2018 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 7 as well as learned senior counsel appearing for the Bihar State Pollution Control Board and the learned counsel appearing for the State. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the furniture shop in question, which was illegally running inside the city of Muzaffarpur, has been removed during the pendency of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.20365 of 2014 (3) dt.26-10-2018 2/2 present writ petition on account of the steps taken by the Bihar State Pollution Control Board, hence nothing survives in the present case for adjudication.

The learned counsel for the respondent no. 7 has submitted that the petitioner has been made to run away from the place where his Almirah and furniture shop was being run after issuance of notice by this Court.

Having regard to the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the present writ petition is disposed off as having become infructuous.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) S.Sb/- U