Sujata v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3778 of 2016 ====================================================== Sujata Wife of Satyendra Kumar Manjhi, Resident of village P.O.- Santhi, P.S.- Raghunathpur, District- Siwan ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The Additional Secretary, Department of Home Police, Bihar, Patna 3.

The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna 4.

The Additional Director General of Police H/Q, Bihar, Patna 5.

The Inspector General of POlice, Bihar, Patna 6.

The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Magadh Range, Gaya 7.

The Superintendent of Police, Nawada 8.

The Inspector General of Police, Tirhut Zone, Muzaffarpur 9.

The Deputy Inspector General of Police Tirhut Range, Muzaffarpur 10.

The Superintendent of Police, Sitamarhi 11.

The Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affaris, New Delhi 12.

The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, U.O.I., New Delhi 13.

The Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India, New Delhi 14.

The Under Secretary PMA, Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India, New Delhi 15.

The Director Police, Ministry of Home, Govt. of India, New Delhi ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

None.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. K.N.Jha, AC to G.P.-11 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 16-07-2025 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Union of India are present.

2. On the previous date i.e. on 18.06.2025, no one had appeared on behalf of the petitioner to press the writ application.

Patna High Court CWJC No.3778 of 2016(4) dt.16-07-2025 2/2 It was made clear that if on the next date also, no one would appear on behalf of the petitioner then the Court may consider dismissing the case for non-prosecution. Despite the order passed on 18.06.2025, again no one has appeared to press the writ application. It is thus clear the petitioner has lost interest in pursuing the writ application.

3. Under these circumstances, the writ application is dismissed for non-prosecution.

(Alok Kumar Sinha, J) kiran/- U