← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/491/2021dismiss for nonprosecution

Sriniwas Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2023-09-25Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.491 of 2021 ====================================================== Sriniwas Kumar, S/o Harihar Prasad Singh, R/o Dindir, P.s.- Haspura, District- Aurangabad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Bihar 2.

Bihar Technical Service Commission, Patna Through Chairman 19, Hardinge Road, Patna Through Its Chairman 3.

The Chairman, Bihar Technical Service Commission, 19 Harding Road, Patna 4.

The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna 5.

The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna 6.

The Principal Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna 7.

The Principal Secretary Urban Development Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

N o n e For the State :

Mr. Manish Kumar, GP-4 For the Commission :

Mr. Nikesh Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 25-09-2023 1.

Learned counsel for the respondent-Bihar Technical Service Commission (hereinafter referred as "Commission") submits that the petitioner's claim is with respect to an Advertisement bearing No. 01 of 2019. The said advertisement has since been withdrawn, which has been placed on record by way of a supplementary counter-affidavit, and, therefore, on account of such development during pendency of the instant writ application, the writ application has become

Patna High Court CWJC No.491 of 2021(9) dt.25-09-2023 2/2 infructuous. It is submitted that copy of the supplementary counter-affidavit has already been served on learned counsel for the petitioner on 13.07.2023 itself.

2. The order sheet reveals that when the matter was taken up on the last occasion, i.e. on 10.08.2023, there was none to represent the petitioner.

3. Today, the situation is the same. For two consecutive dates, learned counsel for the petitioner is absent.

4. Therefore, without going into the merits of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respondentCommission, writ application is dismissed for want of prosecution.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) shashank/- U