← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/3094/2016dfd for non appearance

Raghunandan Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2019-03-28Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3094 of 2016 ====================================================== Raghunandan Chaudhary Son of Late Videshi Chaudhary, Resident of Sangita Niwas, House No. 181, Ramjaipal Nagar, Gola Road, Danapur, Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar Old Secretariate Patna Bihar 2.

The Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry and Fishery Resource, Govt.of Bihar,New Secretariat P 3.

The Special Secretary Department of Animal Husbandry anf Fishery Resources Govt of Bihar, Patna.

4.

The Under Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry and Fishery Resource, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariate 5.

The Director Fishery, Fishery Directorate, Patna, Bihar. 6.

The Accountant General Bihar, Virchand Patel Path,Patna. 7.

Deputy Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Resources Department, Bihar, Patna.

8.

The Treasury Officer,Patna Sichai Bhawan,Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

None For the State :

Mr.Mritunjay Kumar, AC to AAG 6 For the Respondent/s 6 :

Mr.Manish Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 28-03-2019 A preliminary objection is raised by counsel appearing for the State regarding maintainability of the writ petition. He submits that the petitioner has challenged the consequential action of giving effect to 10 percent deduction of pension under order of punishment dated 02.11.2015 issued by the Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Resources Department, Bihar, Patna. Since the order of punishment has not been

Patna High Court CWJC No.3094 of 2016(4) dt.28-03-2019 2/2 assailed by the petitioner, it is submitted that the consequential action pursuant to order of punishment dated 02.11.2015 cannot be challenged by the petitioner.

Since none appears for the petitioner, without going into the merits of the submissions raised by counsel for the State, writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. (Madhuresh Prasad, J) Prakash/- U