Jagnarayan Prasad v. The Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16539 of 2017 ====================================================== Jagnarayan Prasad, son of late Baijnath Prasad, resident of A/4, Sri Ram Path Mohanpur, P.O. and P.S. L. B. Shastri Nagar, Patna 800023 .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Union of India, through the Secretary (Revenue), Ministry of Finance, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi-1

2. The Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi-1

3. The Addl./Joint/Dy Secretary, (AD-V), office of Central Vigilance Organization, Central Board of Excise and Customs, 6th Floor, HUDCO-VISHALA, Bhikhaji Cama Complex, New Delhi.

4. The Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, Central Secretariat, North Block, New Delhi-1.

5. The Principal Commissioner/Commissioner of CGST and C.Ex., Formerly known as the Principal Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, 3rd Floor, Annexy Central Revenue Building, Birchand Patel Marg, Patna- 800001.

6. The Pay and Account Officer, Department of Central Taxes (CGST & Excise), 4th Floor, Central Revenue Building, Birchand Patel Marg, Patna- 800001.

7. Raj Pal Sharma, presently living at Commissioner Banglow (Type V), Central Excise Staff Quarter, Sahyadri, Nagar, CIDCO, Nasik Maharastra PIN 433099.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the UOI :

Mr. Anjani Kr. Sharan, Asst. S.G.

Patna High Court CWJC No.16539 of 2017 (2) dt.15-11-2017 2/2 For Central Excise and Service Tax :

Mr. Satya Prakash Tripathy, Sr. SC ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL ORDER 15-11-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Union of India.

2. In view of the preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the Union of India that for the relief claimed, the petitioner has first to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that he may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to move before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law.

3. Learned counsel for the Union of India does not object.

4. In view thereof, the writ petition stands disposed off as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid.

5.

If the petitioner approaches the Central Administrative Tribunal, the matter shall be considered on its own merits, without being prejudiced by the fact that the present writ petition has been withdrawn.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) Anjani/- U