Patna High CourtCWJC/2107/2008dismissed

Rama Nand Roy v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-12-20Mr. Justice Birendra Prasad Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2107 of 2008 ====================================================== Rama Nand Roy son of late Satyanarayan Roy, resident of village Birbanna, P.S. Bihpur, District Bhagalpur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Anchal Adhikari, Anchal Office Bihpur, District Bhagalpur.

3. Santosh Mandal, son of late Upendra Mandal, resident of village Birbanna, P.S. Bihpur, District Bhagalpur.

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : None.

For the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. Kamlesh Pd. Yadav, A.C. to A.A.G. 14 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 20-12-2016 Despite repeated calls, none appears on behalf of the petitioner in support of the present writ petition, though the names of the learned counsel appearing on his behalf are printed in the daily cause list.

The learned A.C. to AAG-14 appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 submits that, in fact, the present writ petition stood dismissed against the main contesting respondent No.3 on account of non-compliance of the Court's peremptory order dated 1.4.2013 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. He further submits that in view of dismissal of the writ petition against the contesting respondent no.3, the matter has practically become infructuous and no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The submissions made by the learned State counsel appear to be correct.

From the office note dated 22.8.2016, it appears that the writ petition stood dismissed against the respondent no.3 on account of non-compliance of the Court's order dated 1.4.2013.

Patna High Court CWJC No.2107 of 2008 (5) dt.20-12-2016 2/2 Apparently, the respondent no.3 is the only contesting party in the present writ petition and the reliefs sought for in the present case are against him.

In above view of the matter, this Court is left with no option, but to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of having become incompetent.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, but there shall be no order as to costs.

(Birendra Prasad Verma, J) BTiwary/- U