Mithelesh Kumar Tiwary And ORS v. The Bihar Industrial Area Devp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1419 of 2009 ======================================================
1. Mithelesh Kumar Tiwary son of Late Rambharat Tiwary, resident of village - Sekhpura, Dhelwlan, P.S.- Ramkrishna Nagar, District - Patna
2. Sitaram Paswan, son of late Munshi Paswan, resident of village - Phulwari Shokhara, District - Begusarai
3. Markus David Sah, son of late David Sah, resident of Uttri Patel Nagar, Road No. 24, Police Station - Shastri Nagar, District - Patna .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority through its Managing Director, Udyong Bhawan , East Gandhi Maidan, Patna - 4
2. The Secretary, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Udyog Bhavan, East Gandhi, Maidan, Patna - 4
3. The Managing Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Udyog Bhavan, East Gandhi Maidan, Patna - 4
4. The Executive Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Udyog Bhavan, East Gandhi Maidan, Patna - 4 .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 18-04-2017 Sri Ranjan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners in presence of Sri Kumar Priya Ranjan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents /Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority after noticing the 3rd supplementary counter affidavit along with which order passed by the writ court and approved by L.P.A. court in L.P.A. No. 1843 of 2015 and other connected Appeals submits that now the issue has already been settled.
Sri Kumar Priya Ranjan, learned counsel for the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1419 of 2009 (5) dt.18-04-2017 2/2 respondents has argued that in view of the orders passed by this court, the issue raised in the present writ petition has already been rejected and affirmed by the L.P.A. court.
Accordingly, in view of those orders , learned counsel for the petitioners does not want to press the petition. The writ petition stands dismissed as not pressed. (Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/- U T