Diwan Shahanwaj Khan @ Shahana v. State Bank Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1738 of 2011 ====================================================== Diwan Shahanwaj Khan @ Shahanawaj Khan, son of Late Hamid Khan, R/O Village- Naughara, P.S- Chainpur, District- Kaimur (Bhabhua) .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. State Bank of India through its Branch Manager, State Bank of India Agriculture Development Branch, Bhabhua at Bhabhua, District- Kaimur, (Bhabhua).

2. Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Patna, Bihar.

3. The State of Bihar through Collector cum District Magistrare, Kaimur at Bhabhua.

4. Certificate Officer, Bhabhua, District- Kaimur at Bhabhua .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : None For the Respondent nos.1&2: None For the Respondent nos.3&4: Mr. Avnish Nandan Sinha, GP-11 Mr.Jay Prakash Sharma, AC to GP-11 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 08-05-2015 Despite repeated calls, none appears on behalf of the petitioner in support of the present writ petition. None appears on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2 also. However, learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.3 and 4 is present.

Learned State counsel, by referring to the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos.3 and 4, submits that the present writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner with vague and unspecified reliefs is completely misconceived, untenable and is liable to be dismissed. After going through the records of the writ petition, this Court finds that the reliefs sought for fully detailed in paragraph no.1 are quite unspecific, vague and confusing, though very bald. The petitioner has also not shown any valid cause of action for

Patna High Court CWJC No.1738 of 2011 (3) dt.08-05-2015 approaching this Court in the present proceeding. In above view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the submissions made by the learned State counsel that the writ petition is completely misconceived and liable to be dismissed in the given circumstances of the case, is correct. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a fresh writ petition with well crystallized reliefs enumerated in paragraph no.1 as also with all supporting facts and documents for grant of such reliefs.

(Birendra Prasad Verma, J) Arvind/- U